To achieve our climate goals, the people of Scotland will need to make significant changes to the way we work and play. Behavioural science can offer valuable insights for climate policymaking and can help to encourage behaviour change, but only a fraction policy decisions are currently informed by this research.

In September 2025, we held a roundtable with the Scottish Government to explore how behavioural science can be better integrated into climate and environmental policymaking. Academics and senior civil servants worked to identify new projects or approaches to trial in Scottish Government over the next six months. This report summarises the key discussions and proposed projects from the event.

Key discussions and proposed projects

Roundtable participants discussed the following three key challenges related to integrating behavioural science into climate policymaking – each time asking ‘What can we try in the next six months to address this?’:

• Challenge 1: Prioritising where to embed behavioural science
• Challenge 2: Engaging policymakers with behavioural evidence
• Challenge 3: Improving the evaluation of behavioural interventions

From these discussions, participants identified six proposed projects:

• Develop a prioritisation matrix that ranks policy areas and their corresponding behaviours, based on a structured framework adapted to Scotland’s policy priorities.
• Hold a ‘mutual learning’ workshop for senior policymakers and behavioural researchers to explore climate policy, behavioural science in policymaking’ and opportunities for collaboration. 
• Scope a project to integrate oral history or storytelling into policy design and public engagement.
• Scope the secondment of an academic behavioural researcher into the Climate Behaviours team.
• Co-create theories of change for three priority policy areas, compiling the data into a clear, simple tool that links to data sources monitoring and evaluating impact.
• Develop a ‘Key principles for behavioural evaluations’ document.

The Scottish Government Climate Behaviours Team will take forward the projects proposed in this report.  Roundtable participants will be invited to a follow-up event in spring 2026.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Learn more: ClimateXChange Programme Manager Anne Marte Berseng reflects on the roundtable event in her blog post ‘Making better use of behavioural science in policymaking‘.

Summary report from a science-policy roundtable held 2 September 2025

Research completed: November 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6775

Introduction

In September 2025, ClimateXChange and the Scottish Government held a roundtable to discuss how the use of behavioural science can be embedded and accelerated in climate and environmental policymaking in the Scottish Government.

Significant behaviour change across the population is needed to reach Scotland’s climate goals. This behaviour change is not currently happening at anywhere near the pace or scale required. Making better use of behavioural science in policymaking, through a fundamental re-think of how the Scottish Government makes policy for people, has the potential to make a meaningful difference.

The roundtable with academics and senior civil servants had the aim of identifying two or three new projects or approaches to trial in the Scottish Government over the next six months. This paper sets out the main discussion points, and the projects proposed.

Annex B sets out further background to the roundtable and the questions participants discussed.

Challenge 1: Prioritising where to embed behavioural science

Methods and principles for prioritising

There are very many behavioural changes needed to reach climate mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity goals. These behaviours have various levels of impact, and some are harder for governments to enable than others. The policy process needs to prioritise the embedding of behavioural science and behavioural research accordingly.

Structured frameworks offer a robust way to assess and prioritise policy areas. For example, the ‘APEASE’ framework, considers Acceptability, Practicability (including whether there is existing activity or insight to build on), Effectiveness (including whether policy can have meaningful influence on a behaviour), Affordability, Spill-over effects, and Equity. This framework could be adapted according to the Scottish Government context and priorities – for example, by giving particular weight to three considerations:

• Climate and environment impact: A part of ‘effectiveness’, this addresses the potential impact of behaviour change on reducing emissions, managing the impacts of climate change, and/or supporting biodiversity.
• Behavioural plasticity: A part of ‘practicability’, this is the extent to which behaviours can, feasibly, be changed. It includes a consideration of ‘moments of change’ – that is, key life transitions such as leaving home or retirement – when behaviours are more malleable and the potential of behavioural shifts can be maximised.
• Just transition: Perceived fairness is a key driver of policy acceptability, and just transition is central to both ‘equity’ and ‘acceptability’, and to Scottish Government’s climate policies. Importantly, fairness means considering whether interventions ignore or exacerbate structural inequalities, not only whether they are impactful or feasible.

Prioritisation could also be tailored according to specific local contexts, for place-based behavioural solutions.

Policy sectors of note

Alongside these principles, participants identified the following policy areas as worthy of particular attention:

• Agriculture and land management: Changes in land practices can have significant benefits across climate mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity. Scotland also has a relatively small number of large, influential landowners. This makes targeted interventions potentially more feasible and impactful, on behaviours such as tree planting, water management, and peatland restoration and management.
• Clean heating systems: A widespread switch to heat pumps or other low emission heating would give significant emissions reductions, and the choice between heating systems is mostly presented as a household decision – albeit one affected by wider factors including affordability. Clean heat is also an opportunity for innovation and community or area-based solutions.
• Electric vehicles: Access to charging infrastructure and cost remain barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles, which should be prioritised for their significant potential to reduce emissions. This could also be an opportunity to explore behaviours around vehicle sharing.
• Nature: For many people in Scotland, ideas about nature are closely linked to their identity and pride – both of which can be critical drivers of behaviour change. There are therefore opportunities for using behavioural insights in interventions around eating venison to manage deer populations, ‘greening’ gardens, and improving access to nature through both ‘green’ and ‘blue’ spaces.
• Reducing water consumption: Household water use in Scotland exceeds other UK regions. Given Scotland’s rainy climate, there is both low awareness of this issue and low motivation for change – despite areas of Scotland having experienced drought in recent years.

Proposed projects

Action 1:

Develop a prioritisation matrix that ranks policy areas and their corresponding behaviours, based on climate-adapted APEASE criteria.

Challenge 2: Engaging policymakers with behavioural evidence

Challenges and opportunities

Several significant reasons were identified for why behavioural science does not have a more central role in policymaking: a lack of clarity on the root causes of the policy problem; a lack of time available to consider behavioural insights; and a lack of capacity to analyse potentially conflicting evidence. Time pressures create a bottleneck where particularly senior leaders are unable to devote time and resource to consider the full breadth of available evidence to inform complex policy options. It can also be a challenge that behavioural science does not often lead to one clear policy option. Conversely, there is a need to increase capability among academics to present behavioural insights in a way which is useful within the complicated policymaking process.

This raises several opportunities: working to increase mutual understanding between policymakers and academics can help build relationships that survive the churn of officials, and can foster more widespread understanding of how to use behavioural evidence. This could also be pursued by ‘raising the floor’ across the board by increasing policymakers’ understanding of and engagement with behavioural science. That would allow policymakers to better identify the behavioural components of their policy problems and communicate these to academics.

Finally, there is also an opportunity to find more effective means of distilling and sharing key evidence, by using trusted knowledge brokers to engage with senior leaders. For example, climate action can be politically difficult to drive, so storytelling approaches could be brought more into policymaking. This has the potential to better capture the public imagination and to use public participation and engagement to build trust and support for more contentious proposals.

Possible actions and approaches

Action 2:

Hold a ‘mutual learning’ workshop between senior policymakers and behavioural researchers in a priority policy area (see Action 1). This session should cover fundamentals of ‘the practical use of behavioural science in policymaking’ and ‘the realities of climate policymaking’. It should also include an exercise to identify short- and longer-term opportunities for collaboration.

Action 3:

Scope a project to introduce oral history or storytelling expertise as part of policy design and public engagement. The project would seek to understand the different ways that the sharing of stories, experiences and perspectives can have influence on policymaking, and on engagement with the public.

Action 4:

Scope the secondment of an academic behavioural researcher into the Climate Behaviours team (to start in spring 2026), being clear on the purpose. See Annex A for a case study of the secondment of a behavioural scientist into the Cabinet Office.

Challenge 3: Improving the evaluation of behavioural interventions

Challenges and opportunities

Evaluating the impact of behavioural interventions is important to generate evidence of what works, and why. However, it is challenging and resource-intensive to test and track the direct impact of policies on behaviours.

The fast-paced and non-linear nature of the policy cycle can be at odds with evaluation practice, as new priorities often emerge before there is time to assess the impact of existing interventions. In a policy environment where demonstrating short-term impact is important to justify investment, it can be difficult to pursue evaluations which seek to understand what works over time. It is often not possible to meaningfully demonstrate the effect of an intervention over a single electoral cycle.

When evaluations do occur, there can be an emphasis on demonstrating immediate impact, or solely proving which aims have been reached – rather than a more holistic focus on the wider changes which an intervention is contributing to. Indeed, articulating the relative contribution which an intervention has made is also a challenge.

Three practical elements can be the foundation for building evaluation practice into policymaking:

• A simple theory of change that clarifies how the intervention is expected to reach its desired objectives, and which is broadly understood by the policymakers and analysts involved.
• Clear, evaluative questions based on the theory of change, and a record of what is being achieved.
• Proportionate data to track each element – which incorporates (as appropriate) qualitative and quantitative data and is of ‘good enough’ quality.

A Bayesian approach – which looks at the accumulation of knowledge and learning – could help to guide evaluation strategies which span multiple, shorter-term interventions. Whereas traditional evaluation methods use data to provide singular answers on the success (or not) of an intervention, Bayesian approaches suggest the confidence or likelihood of an intervention’s success, based on both the data and what is already known.

Possible actions and approaches

Action 5:

Co-create theories of change for three priority policy areas (see Action 1), and collate the data to feed into this. Provide this in a simple, clear tool for each policy area, which also links to data sources for monitoring and evaluating impact.

Action 6:

Develop a short document with ‘Key principles for behavioural evaluations’, including principles, case studies from the Scottish Government’s Centre of Expertise in Appraisal and Evaluation, and contact details for experienced individuals.  

Taking action

The Scottish Government Climate Behaviours Team will take forward the projects and actions proposed in this roundtable summary. They will collaborate with and involve Scottish Government colleagues and other roundtable participants as relevant. The roundtable participants will be invited to a follow-up event in spring 2026 to take stock, and review and reflect on progress.

Annex A:
Case study: Reviewing knowledge, skills and training needs across the Civil Service in behavioural research

Dr Marie-Louise Sharp is seconded to the Cabinet Office as part of the National Capability in Behavioural Research Programme (NCBR). Her secondment runs for four years from February 2025.

“My fellowship workplan is to scope and develop training interventions to increase capability and upskill Civil Servants in their knowledge, skills, networks and use of behavioural research, with the intention of more systematically embedding behavioural research evidence and methods into policy, strategy and delivery processes in the work of Government in the future.

“The first phase of the fellowship will focus on mapping behavioural research knowledge and capability in the Civil Service, whilst also scoping where gaps might be, and what training/interventions might be needed in the future to serve different groups in the Civil Service. These groups might cover behavioural research specialists, different professions, and those who commission behavioural research. It is also important to consider what baseline level of knowledge and training is needed for everyone to improve their behavioural literacy.

“Additionally, the scoping work will look more broadly at systems and cultures within the Civil Service to identify both barriers and enablers of Civil Servants being able to apply behavioural research skills in their day-to-day practice. I will be looking at leadership and ultimately, with any intervention, where the most impact might occur from any upskilling programme.

Dr Sharp is seconded from the Centre for National Training and Research Excellence for Understanding Behaviour (Centre-UB) hosted by the University of Birmingham as part of a £17m investment from ESRC into Behavioural Research in the UK

Annex B: Roundtable pre-read

Accelerating the use of behavioural science in climate policymaking

A pre-read for participants in the roundtable on 2 September 2025

Professor Linda Bauld, Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh and Professor Paul Cairney

Key points: Why are we holding this roundtable?

The focus: This roundtable will discuss how the use of behavioural science can be embedded and accelerated in climate and environmental policymaking in the Scottish Government (SG).

The context: Scotland will not reach our climate goals without significant behaviour change across the population. This behaviour change is not currently happening at anywhere near the pace or scale required. Making better use of behavioural science in policymaking, through a fundamental re-think of how we make policy for people, has the potential to make a meaningful difference to how we work on climate as a government. Despite the abundance of behavioural research and strong evidence of its value to policymaking^[1], only a fraction comes to influence policy choices. Significant hurdles to embedding behavioural science in climate policy remain.

The challenge: This roundtable with academics and senior civil servants aims to identify two or three new projects or approaches to trial in SG over the next six months. Together, we will consider how we prioritise action where it is needed most; how to overcome the challenge of making evidence more accessible and usable to policymakers, and how to empower them to use it effectively; and to better demonstrate of the impact of behaviour change via a more systematic use of evaluation. Participants are asked to consider examples that have worked well and what factors made them successful, as well as lessons learned from examples that did not cut through.

Specifically, we’ll discuss three challenges – each time asking, ‘What can we try in the next six months to address this?’:

• There are very many behavioural changes needed to reach SG’s climate mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity goals. These behaviours have various levels of impact, and some are harder for SG to enable than others. We need to prioritise the embedding of behavioural science accordingly.
• Not enough policymakers in Scottish Government are seeking out behavioural evidence and expertise when making climate and environment policy. The evidence they do find is often densely academic and hard to apply.
• Evaluating the impact of behavioural interventions is important for generating evidence of what works, and why. However, it is challenging and resource-intensive to test and track the direct impact of our policies on behaviours.

The following paper sets out the context for this roundtable.

What do we mean by ‘behavioural science’ and ‘behaviour change interventions’?

Behavioural science (or ‘behavioural research’) is the study of how people behave and make decisions. Using data, behavioural research seeks to understand what drives people’s actions. This includes individual, social and material factors. It is a multidisciplinary field that examines human behaviour by combining insights from a range of academic disciplines including psychology, sociology, neuroscience, economics and others.

Behaviour change interventions are a coordinated set of activities designed to change specified behaviour patterns – these patterns that are measured in terms of the prevalence or incidence of particular behaviours in specified populations.^[2] Behaviour change interventions need to take into account individual factors (capability and motivation) but also, importantly, context (social and environmental factors).^[3]

Why is behavioural science particularly important in climate policymaking?

Scotland will not reach our climate goals without significant behaviour change across the population. This behaviour change is not currently happening at anywhere near the pace or scale required. To reach net zero by 2045, we need car use to reduce significantly (by at least 20%) and for almost every new car sold to be electric (currently, it’s 1 in 7); we need 92% of homes to have installed clean heating (currently, it’s 11%); we need land managers to be planting more trees and to be restoring and maintaining two-thirds of our peatland (currently, it’s less than one-third).

The First Minister’s Environment Council recently recommended that the SG accelerates the use of behavioural techniques in climate policy. Importantly, this does not mean locating responsibility for these changes with individuals – policies are needed that remove the barriers to action. Behavioural science can increase the chance that ‘the public’ accept and co-operate with policies.

Understanding behaviour is relevant for all stages of the climate policymaking cycle, from problem definition to evaluation. For example:

• At the problem definition or agenda-setting stage, important behavioural questions need to be asked, including, which behaviours and whose behaviour does the policy seek to address/reach/change.
• During policy formulation, consideration of how alternatives will affect behaviour is important, as it is when considering policy alternatives and policy design.
• During implementation, the success of a policy is often determined by behaviour (by governments, delivery partners, and communities affected).
• Including behavioural research in the evaluation can support our understanding of whether the policy succeeded or failed or how it can be improved in future.

Behavioural science is of course not a silver bullet, leading to one clear policy option. Policy choices will still be complex and difficult, but by using evidence from behavioural research and insights, these choices will be more fully informed, and decisions will have a greater chance of succeeding.

How does SG currently use behavioural science in climate policymaking?

Many climate and environment policymakers use ‘person-centred’ principles in their work and intuitively think about citizens’ behaviours. SG has dedicated resource to ensure that this work is consistent, well-documented, and using the latest behavioural insights.

SG has a ‘Climate Behaviours’ team of four people

Their role is to support SG policymakers and partners to use the latest behavioural insights when developing and delivering climate change policy and projects. They have worked closely with 12 policy teams and with external partners; support a cross-directorate Climate Behaviours network; routinely share latest behavioural evidence with policymakers; and deliver a nationwide climate marketing campaign each year. The team’s recent projects include:

• co-designing 10 new behavioural interventions to enable more farmers to plant trees, which agriculture colleagues are now working to deliver
• conducting a ‘sludge audit’ of the heat pump grant and loan scheme, in order to increase the number of people installing heat pumps
• overseeing the design of a behaviourally-informed Household Flood Plan template, to enable more people at risk to prepare for flooding.

Central behavioural expertise

To support behavioural science in policymaking more broadly, SG seconds behavioural researcher Professor Linda Bauld as Chief Social Policy Adviser. There is also a team of three social researchers within Central Analysis Division (CAD) who support a cross-government ‘Behavioural Insight Network’. Professor Bauld and these social researchers (with support from others including academics) have developed a Behavioural Science Toolkit that is available via SG’s internal learning portal. CAD colleagues and Professor Bauld, working with SG communications and others, also contribute to UK and international networks on behavioural science in health.

Enabling the uptake of behavioural science

• In the Climate Behaviours team’s experience factors which best enable the uptake of behavioural science are: Dedicated capacity to stay abreast of latest behavioural insights and identify timely opportunities for these to be applied to government’s strategic priorities (i.e. in areas with momentum and decisions to be made);
• Buy-in and attention from senior leaders who give policymakers the mandate to dedicate time and resources to behavioural work; and strong working relationships between grassroots policymakers and the Climate Behaviours team, collaborating on discrete projects through in-person workshops to build capacity and relationships.

Why is it difficult to embed behavioural science in climate policymaking?

There are significant hurdles to embedding behavioural science in climate policy. Behavioural science is an evolving and multidisciplinary field, and behaviour changes can be slow and difficult to measure, often making it costly to evaluate interventions and to learn what works.

Added to this, climate policy is highly cross-sectoral, politically sensitive and operates in a complex global landscape. A systemic approach to climate policy is needed to address the multiple factors that shape society. This combines regulation, infrastructure and market incentives (upstream interventions) with development of skills and services (mid-stream), and communication and engagement with communities, businesses and individuals (downstream).^[4] Governments tend to focus on individual-level rather than system-level interventions. This ‘downstream’ focus can exacerbate inequalities by not removing structural barriers to action. Effective interventions tackle institutional barriers, skills gaps and power structures.

Despite the abundance of behavioural research, only a fraction comes to influence policy choices. Findings are context-dependent so conclusions can be contradictory, e.g. ‘the best mode of communicating about climate change depends on the audience’. This can make it difficult for policymakers to find the top line or overall narrative and prioritise actions.

Conclusions from behavioural research can be broad principles for good practice. Policymakers sometimes struggle to relate that to their specific policy context or issue. Additionally behavioural studies may not measure economic aspects of an intervention, which are often important to policymakers.

Further to this, the Scottish Government Climate Behaviours team have identified the following primary challenges to their work:

• Low awareness of behavioural science as a tool, and misunderstanding at all levels of government as to what it offers. There are widespread misconceptions that enabling behaviour change is the work of communications, is simply about ‘nudges’ (when it is much broader than that), or that the tools are complex and inaccessible to policymakers.
• Few senior leaders are calling for climate behavioural work meaning few policymakers feel they can dedicate resources for ‘nice to have’ behaviours work.
• There are no mechanisms for systematically requiring behavioural evidence in policymaking.

What are the barriers to using evidence in policymaking?

A wealth of research demonstrates an often-large and enduring gap between the supply and demand for research evidence in policy making. These challenges are not exclusive to behavioural science – there are barriers (and enablers) to the full use of all types of evidence in policymaking. There are no simple and obvious solutions to this problem. Rather, we focus on how to understand and respond to three general issues:

Limited coordination and control over policy outcomes

Simple aspirational models of policymaking give the impression of an orderly cycle of activity coordinated from a government, with clear opportunities to use evidence when defining a problem, generating solutions, and evaluating outcomes.

Real-world policymaking involves policy outcomes that emerge from the interaction between many choices made at different times by many different policymaking organisations, making it difficult for researchers to know where and when to act to make an impact with evidence. This issue has prompted attention to a range of approaches and aims to foster policymaking integration, policy coherence, or systems approaches to problems and policymaking.

Limited agreement on what counts as ‘the evidence’

If you engage with a diverse range of researchers and policymakers, you will find a range of ideas on what constitutes good evidence. For example, there is debate within research about what constitutes high quality evidence and which methods to prioritise. Policymakers and researchers may also prioritise different criteria to determine usability, such as to emphasise the methods to produce and evaluate evidence or its timeliness, brevity, and relevance to policy agendas.

Limited resources to gather, understand, and use evidence for policy

Researchers often describe filling gaps in knowledge with more information, to reduce policy uncertainty by improving our understanding of the technical feasibility of solutions. Time-pressed policymakers need reliable ways to filter out most information, seeking a small number of routinely trusted sources. They also use their values or beliefs to reduce policy ambiguity (which describes many ways to interpret the same problem) and seek to engage with a diverse range of stakeholders to improve the political feasibility of solutions. Hence, the disconnect can relate to different activities: researchers seeking more effective ways to communicate technically feasible solutions; and policymakers seeking solutions that would work politically as well as technically.

Appendix A – For those less well-versed in behavioural science: How is behavioural science used in policymaking?

To inform different scopes of policy

• Behavioural intervention: Behavioural science can be used to target individual actions through behavioural interventions.
• Single policy: It can support the development of individual policy tools, by guiding policy choice and design with an understanding of behavioural factors.
• Policy mix: It can align multiple policy tools to work together towards a shared objective, informed by relevant behavioural factors.
• System: And behavioural science can be used to pinpoint leverage points to achieve a more cohesive, well-functioning system.

To inform different stages in the policymaking cycle

When designing policy, we can use evidence to identify the behavioural changes which can benefit our society, and which we can fairly ask the public to make. We can use behavioural models to design policies and policy mixes which are most likely to be effective.

For example: The Behaviour Change Wheel ^[5] sets out the full range of policy levers which can be pulled to enable behaviour change. It suggests that multiple policy levers are necessary, without over-reliance on one.

When delivering policy, behavioural models help us understand the barriers preventing people from responding the way we intended them to. They help us to see how to overcome those barriers and to course-correct.

For example: The EAST Framework ^[6] proposes that policy needs to make a behaviour Easy, Attractive, Social and Timely. If a policy isn’t achieving each one, then gaps should be addressed.

When evaluating policy, behavioural data can be used to measure impact, and to understand the reasons for that.

For example: The COM-B Model ^[7] proposes that people need Capability, Opportunity and Motivation in order to act. We can measure each of these through surveys and focus groups, to help understand levels of uptake of the desired behaviour.

To inform different types of policy

Behavioural science sets our policy as being Upstream, Midstream, or Downstream:

• Upstream (e.g. focusing on systemic and structural factors at societal level)
• Midstream (targeting the context and environment to make positive behaviours easier and more likely)
• Downstream (addressing individual behaviours and providing targeted support to those who need it)

To enable systems thinking

By combining evidence on individual behavioural factors and influences with an understanding of the context within which behaviours occur and the dynamic interactions and feedback loops within complex systems^[8].

End notes

1. Ruggeri, K., Stock, F., Haslam, S.A. et al. (2024) A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19, Nature, 625, 134-147, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9 ↑

2. Michie et al (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions, Implementation Science, 6, 42, doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 ↑

3. Davis, R, Campbell, R, Hildon, Z, Hobbs, L, Michie, S (2014) Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychology Review, 9, 3, doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.941722 ↑

4. Pidgeon, N (2025), Example Behaviour Change Interventions in the Domain of the Environment, Internal briefing to Scottish Government Chief Scientific Adviser ↑

5. Michie, S, Van Stralen, M, West, R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 1, doi: 10. 1186/1748-5908-6-42 ↑

6. The Behavioural Insights Team. (2014) EAST: Four Simple Ways to Apply Behavioural Insights; Behavioural Insights Team: London, UK. ↑

7. Michie, S, Van Stralen, M, West, R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 1, doi: 10. 1186/1748-5908-6-42 ↑

8. Parkinson JA, Gould A, Knowles N, West J, Goodman AM (2025) Integrating Systems Thinking and Behavioural Science. Behav Sci, 15(4) 403. doi: 10.3390/bs15040403

   
   

How to cite this publication: Whitmarsh, L., Cairney, P., Bauld, L., Bartholomew, K., Creamer, E. and Bergseng, AM. (2025) ‘Accelerating the use of behavioural science in climate policymaking’, ClimateXChange. http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6775

© The University of Edinburgh, 2025
Prepared by ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.       

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

It is an exciting time to manage the ClimateXChange programme. We have kicked off 20 research projects since the start of our financial year in April, and are in the process of recruiting and appointing a new cohort of post-doctoral researchers to explore complex issues like soil health, just transition and electricity market reform.

Over the last few months the Scottish Government has also reviewed all its Centres of Expertise. This has provided us with some very valuable feedback to continue developing and improving the service we provide.

Our current funded programme runs until the end of March 2025, and our priorities until then include:

• Commissioned projects – delivering evidence to tight policy timelines
• Ignite workshops – engaging with the research community on themes across our research portfolios to identify current and future research needs to inform policy
• Thought leadership – through outputs like our blog and recently launched podcast
• Ongoing support to Scottish Government policy and analytical teams – through our directors, directorate members and staff team taking part in workshops, round tables and working groups

We also want to connect with new networks and organisations, and strengthen the many relationships across the climate change community that have been developed over the years. This is not least important with the change away from annual climate targets, and the increasing impacts of climate change on Scotland’s businesses and communities.

One of the most important tasks in the months ahead is to take stock and look ahead. With extremely busy project portfolios (we have over 45 active projects at time of writing), it can be difficult to find the time or opportunity to look across our projects at the bigger picture.

We hope to use our new ignite workshops to capture questions that we are not asking, but that could change the pace and scale of climate action. Keep an eye on our social media and newsletter for details on how to get involved.

Anne Marte Bergseng started as the new ClimateXChange (CXC) Programme Manager this August. She previously worked as CXC Project Manager for climate resilience and social change, and before that as the CXC Communications and Engagement Manager. She has worked in knowledge exchange on environmental and sustainability issues for over 20 years.

Many communities across Scotland live with the risk of flooding – a risk that will increase with the impacts of a changing climate. Over the past decade Scotland’s approach to flood risk management has increasingly considered wider community resilience and wellbeing as outcomes from flood risk planning and action. This blog looks at how this shaped the agenda for Scotland’s Flood Risk Management Conference 2023 and related ClimateXChange research.

As the Scottish Government prepares its Flooding Strategy, which will be out for consultation later in 2023, flood risk planners, consultants, researchers and community groups gathered for the annual Flood Risk Management Conference.

The question framing this year’s conference was ‘How can Scotland’s flood risk management sector work together to ensure that Scotland’s places continue to thrive despite the heightened flood risks brought by rising sea levels and more intense and frequent rainstorms?’

It is a question that illustrates both the importance of climate change in managing flood risk and the need to consider community resilience holistically. The National Flood Risk Assessment for Scotland identifies 284,000 properties in Scotland as being at risk of being flooded. A baseline study from 2020 found that potentially around 81,000 of these properties could benefit from some form of property flood resilience measures.

This highlights the need to work on many fronts to reduce the risk and make our buildings and wider infrastructure more resilient to the impacts of flooding. Individuals, communities, businesses and government at local and national level all play a part in preventing risk and managing impact.

Benefits by design

Recent ClimateXChange projects have looked at how flood risk management needs to be part of and also drive regional economic development, how to analyse investment needs and routes to securing investments, and how to involve a wide group of stakeholders and community interest in climate change adaptation planning.

A key theme across these research projects is how to realise multiple benefits when designing flood risk management plans – on the ground and for a range of stakeholders. How can the aim of ‘thriving communities in the face of climate change impacts’ translate into the practice of flood risk managers in local councils, national agencies like the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), businesses operating in areas with flood risk, and not least – the communities living with flooding?

Framing is everything

Framing and objectives for flood risk management are the key to setting in train positive transformation that considers how to manage shocks and stresses accompanied by a positive ambition for a thriving community. This means science and engineering balanced with engagement, lived experience and innovative approaches.

Where flood risk management in years gone by was the domain of hard infrastructure, it is now about creating a positive vision and using blue, green and grey infrastructure as important parts of the toolbox to creating flourishing communities that provide safety and wellbeing.

One useful element of the process is a Theory of Change (ToC) – a map of how activities and actions are expected to lead to the future resilient state. Developing and using a ToC sets out the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’, and can also help in monitoring progress and adjusting the course.

Learning loops

Good adaptation – and, by extension, flood risk management – integrates across policy and addresses societal challenges such as inequalities. Good adaptation processes create learning loops between those involved and, over time, thinking across strategy, tactic and operations.

The Flood Risk Management Conference 2023 confirmed that good initiatives are innovative, inclusive and ready to learn and adjust.

All the presentations from the conference are available on the Sniffer website, including a presentation by Steven Trewhella, Director of Rivelin Bridge, who presented ‘Ten in 10’ – lessons from recent CXC projects in the Coastal Change Plenary.

Related links

FRM2023 conference slides

FRM2023 conference videos

National Flood Risk Assessment

Ten principles for good adaptation

Featured ClimateXChange projects

Property flood resilience – Scottish baseline study

Tidal flooding on the Clyde options analysis and scoping of adaptation pathways

International practice on assessing investment needs and securing investment to adapt

Taking a managed adaptive approach to flood risk management planning – evidence for guidance

How was the pandemic for you? It is a difficult question to ask and possibly even more difficult to answer. The group of people living in Scotland that we followed from July 2020 to July 2021 had both positive and negative experiences during a year of going in and out of lockdown.

That was the background to the Just Festival inviting me to reflect on what positives we can take from a global pandemic with Jason Leitch, National Clinical Director of Healthcare Quality and Strategy in the Scottish Government, and Derek Mitchell, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice Scotland. Our panel discussion ‘Covid Positive: Can there be any upside to the pandemic?’ was moderated by Professor Liz Grant, Director of the Global Health Academy at the University of Edinburgh.

Home working

One of the most obvious changes from the pandemic is the increase in working from home. Our business travel survey showed that nearly three in four organisations in Scotland either already support home working or plan to do so in the future. This is a significant uplift from over 60 per cent of employers having most of their staff based at an office or workplace before the pandemic.

Working from home sets in train a range of changes, including how much time we spend commuting, how managers coordinate their teams, how colleagues connect, and what we have for lunch. The emissions from heating our homes go up and from commuting to the office go down, according to a study we commissioned.

Keeping habits

Amongst our study participants there was an appetite for a number of the changes to daily lives brought on by the pandemic to be sustained, particularly using the car less, shopping locally, reducing waste and cooking from scratch.

However, a lack of infrastructure, services, knowledge and skills made many unsure they would manage to maintain those habits. Then there is the cost, for instance of shopping locally – an issue that has come into even sharper focus with the current cost of living crisis.

Community and communication

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has widened the narrative around climate change to highlight that collective action and change are possible, our research has shown. What’s more, in recovering from the pandemic, there is the opportunity to further tackle climate change.

This sense of community as a possible positive to build on as we tackle the big challenges of our time, was also highlighted by both my fellow panellists.

Another interesting aspect is the impact the pandemic has had on public debate and the role of science in informing that debate. During the pandemic we had scientists on the airwaves and on our screens every day. They gave meaning to new terminology and helped us pick our way through complex data. Will this have a lasting impact on how we discuss complex challenges like climate change and the role of research in informing our public debate?

Did we find an upside to the pandemic? Not really. But we have learned from the experience, not least how connected and dependent on each other we are locally, nationally and globally.

Featured projects

Net zero behaviours in the recovery from Covid-19

Covid-19, travel behaviours and business recovery in Scotland

Emissions impact of home working in Scotland

Communicating on climate change after Covid-19

Related links

Will a “new normal” after Covid-19 offer fresh hope for the climate crisis?

Building back better: A net-zero emissions recovery

Just Festival

A key objective for CXC is to make research accessible to a broad audience – particularly across public policy and for others who need this evidence to make decisions. In this blog, CXC Knowledge Exchange Manager Anne Marte Bergseng sets out why we have worked to achieve the Plain English Campaign’s Website Crystal Mark.

Plain language means writing and designing outputs so that it is easy for the intended audience to find, understand and use information. Across both academia and government organisations, this can be a challenge.

In practice, a lack of plain language means the reader spends longer reading a text and may miss or misunderstand key information. A lack of accessible research evidence was one of the challenges ClimateXChange and the other Scottish Government Centres of Expertise were set up to tackle.

Clear – concise – actionable

Our audience is time poor, and comprises policy specialists rather than science specialists. This is why we strive to keep our outputs concise and written in plain language. Working with our research providers, we focus on ways to make texts accessible and actionable on first read. The reader should be able to skim our reports and understand:

• What is the problem/issue/challenge?
• Why does it matter?
• What can be done?

Communicating highly technical and complex climate change research in jargon-free, easy-to-read language is not straightforward, and it needs to be a focus in each individual project.

Achieving the Crystal Mark

Plain English training has been part of our offer to our researchers for a number of years, and all our reports are reviewed for clarity and accessibility. In the last year, we have worked with the Plain English Campaign to achieve its Website Crystal Mark – we are proud that the website you are reading has made the grade.

A Plain English Campaign Crystal Mark-approved website is not just about the language; the review also covers accessibility, design, content and navigation. The reviewer looks for:

• information that is easy to read and understand;
• design that helps, rather than hinders, the visitor;
• information that is easy to find; and
• whether the site contain the information people could reasonably expect to find.

 Writing for our audience

Plain language has considering the audience at its core –  communicating with them as they would communicate with themselves. Our reports and our website are written for policy colleagues in the Scottish Government, rather than directly aimed at the general public. This means we assume some prior knowledge of Scottish climate change legislation and policy.

The key challenge is presenting research methodology and outcomes simply and accessibly, and to bring out the ‘so what’ from the research findings – how can the evidence inform climate change actions in Scotland? With this in mind, we hope our efforts also mean that ClimateXChange research is accessible to a wider audience – e.g. across the public sector, in NGOs and businesses, and students and academics.

We aim to be a practical, constructive and inclusive partner for those developing climate policy in Scotland. The way we write and present our research should never be a barrier to joining the conversation. Achieving, and in the years to come keeping, the Plain English Crystal Mark is one way to demonstrate our commitment.

Top tips for writing Plain English

• Keep it short: 15-20 words in a sentence. Most commas can be replaced by a full stop.
• Use active verbs. E.g. say ‘Government will review the plan next year’ rather than the passive construction ‘A review of the plan will be undertaken by Government next year’
• Use sub-headings and bullet points to make the text easy to skim. This is particularly important for text that will be read on screen.

Read more about the Plain English Campaign

Read more about our approach to communicating research to a policy audience

Weather disruption is a ‘system stressor’ that is projected to increase in the coming decades as the global climate changes. The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment has identified climate change as one of the greatest risks to public health in the UK, and one which will impact vulnerable people disproportionally.

This project looks at how providers of social care support at home in Scotland respond to extreme weather events. Based on experience from three case studies of extreme weather, it considers how the sector is planning for, dealing with and learning from such events. The study only looks at support provided in people’s homes. It does not address care provided in other settings such as residential care homes.

The report is a first step in making an assessment of the social care support sector’s resilience to climate change and helping to improve this. The research is based on interviews with social care providers and with those working in business continuity, emergency planning and community resilience in six geographical focus areas. It also involved desk research, drawing on strategies and plans relevant to the provision of social care support at home which are in the public domain.

The study was commissioned and carried out prior to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, and also at a time when the Scottish Government was working with partners to develop a programme to support reform of adult social care support.

The report is published with the hope that the findings and recommendations resonate with and can support the recovery and remobilisation of the sector, and the ongoing reform work that was underway prior to the pandemic, and can support the wider learning around resilience from the pandemic.

Key findings

• While extreme weather is a consideration in social care support, the research suggests planning for more frequent events caused by climate change is not front of mind for current leaders and managers in the sector.
• The case study extreme weather events increased staff workload and travel times. Some providers moved to working from priority lists following Met Office weather warnings, continuing care and support categorised as critical or essential. We did not find data on the impact on clients not on the priority lists. It is also worth noting that priority list clients have complex needs that require specialist skills, which those staff who can reach them during travel disruption may not have. This makes staff re-deployment more challenging.
• The social care support sector – thanks to the extraordinary commitment of staff – flexes at a time of crisis. Delivering social care through the case study extreme weather events was dependent on the goodwill, flexibility and high levels of motivation of the existing workforce. Some of the challenges faced during extreme weather bear aspects of similarity to those emerging as key factors for responding to the pandemic and during the first steps towards recovery.

Scotland’s Climate Assembly is giving 100 people living in Scotland a unique opportunity to learn more about climate change and consider what actions Scotland should take to ‘to tackle the climate emergency in an effective and fair way?’

A citizens’ assembly brings together a group of people to learn about, discuss, and deliberate on a difficult issue, and reach a conclusion about what they think should happen.

The Scottish Assembly have at the time of this blog held three weekend of meetings. During their first meeting weekend members learnt about the science of climate change; the impacts of a changing climate; and  actions that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The second weekend focused on exploring where Scotland’s emissions come from; how they can be reduced; and what we are doing to adapt to the impacts of climate change in Scotland. The third weekend Assembly members started exploring how change can happen and who is involved in bringing about change.

The materials put together for the assembly are available online – a great resource for anyone interested in learning more. CXC has contributed to the first two weekends:

CXC Policy Director Dave Reay talks about how to reduce our contribution to climate change during the first weekend. During the second weekend the participants watched videos of CXC Programme Manager Dan Barlow talking about government influence on climate action and CXC Science Director Pete Smith setting out the role of diet and land-use in tackling climate change.

Scotland’s Climate Assembly will meet six times, with the last meeting at the start of March 2021. And we are all invited to join the conversation – see how here.

Citizens’ Assemblies have been used to discuss a wide range of questions in many countries. The Climate Assembly UK reported in September 2020, having discussed and agreed different ways the UK can reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. You can read their report here. Climate assemblies have also been run locally.; the Oxford Climate Assembly ran over two weekends in 2019. Read there report here.

The Scottish Government established the Climate Challenge Fund (CCF) in 2008 to help local communities in the transition to a low-carbon society. The fund supports community-led projects which lead to reductions in carbon emissions, and which are designed to leave a sustainable legacy of low-carbon behaviour.

It works in areas such as energy efficiency, sustainable and active travel, reducing and recycling waste, and food growing. As of mid-2020, over 1,150 projects across all Scotland’s 32 local authorities had been awarded CCF grants, with total funding since 2008 exceeding £111 million.

This report considers the evidence for the fund’s impact on the ground, the effectiveness of actions, and how we can monitor success in the future. Emerging findings were captured during the research in a series of interim policy notes, also published here.

The research centres on in-depth case studies of five CCF projects which the team followed for 18 months. The report uses the case study evidence to understand and capture the processes of change supported by the CCF. From this, it draws out lessons on how to facilitate and monitor such impact going forward.

Welcoming the report at the CCF Annual Gathering 2020, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham MSP, said:

I thank the research team for all their efforts on the study which, as they presented in one of the break-out sessions at last year’s Gathering, centred on in-depth case studies of five CCF projects.

Its findings and recommendations will help to identify the specific role that community climate action can play in Scotland’s transition to a net zero society and, crucially, in ensuring that we take everyone with us on that journey.

Findings

• The CCF’s community focus allows it to play a unique role in Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon society. This research identifies that CCF projects contribute to Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon society at the community level in two ways:
  • by directly helping people to explore and adopt low-carbon behaviours; and
  • by building community capacity to embed a legacy of continued bottom-up change that can also support larger-scale policy interventions.
• The CCF’s unique contributions are not adequately captured through the lens of carbon emissions. This echoes findings from earlier reviews of the CCF.
• Current carbon-focused CCF monitoring and reporting processes present several limitations.
• The CCF programme faces similar issues to other community empowerment policies. As such, its design could usefully reflect the barriers and opportunities faced by community projects in general.

Recommendations

Moving Beyond Carbon Emissions

1. The CCF programme should seek to address all the elements of Climate Change Engagement.

Better Capturing and Reporting CCF Success

2. We suggest reporting along the lines of the proposed Climate Change Engagement framework.
3. Reporting processes need to be realistic.
4. It is important to separate supporting and assessment functions in the reporting process.

Making the Most of the CCF’s Community Focus

5. CCF projects could be given more guidance and support to identify and respond to their communities’ specific characteristics.
6. The CCF funding approach should reflect diverse community capacities.
7. The CCF could empower projects to be adaptive over the course of the funding period.