the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Dec 2025
Barriers and facilitators for using palaeoclimate evidence in UK climate decision making
Abstract. The impacts of anthropogenic climate change are becoming increasingly severe and the need for more informed policies based on robust and reliable scientific evidence is more critical than ever. Whilst contemporary climate evidence is routinely based on instrumental data, palaeoclimate offers a much longer temporal perspective of the behaviour of the climate system, climate extremes, and environmental responses. Offering in turn a longer-term perspective on how past climate has imposed both costs and opportunities for innovation on human communities and ecosystems. Net Zero policies are just the latest example of how humans are framing their adaption and resilience strategies. Despite the benefits of palaeoclimate insights, there is limited awareness of how palaeoclimate is being used, what barriers are currently limiting the inclusion of palaeoclimate evidence into decision making, and what opportunities are available for palaeoclimate evidence beyond the research community.
In this study we set out to fill this knowledge gap and explore these barriers and facilitators for palaeoclimate integration in decision making. We do this by employing a semi-structured interview approach with policy advisors from UK Civil Service departments and with palaeoclimate scientists to determine their perception of palaeoclimate evidence as a source for policy evidence. The results showed a good agreement between the interviewed policy advisors and palaeoclimate scientists that there is a place for palaeoclimate evidence in decision making, especially with the contextualisation of current and future climate change. However, the results demonstrated that communication was the principal barrier – both the communication format of palaeoclimate dissemination and the communication of the relevance of palaeoclimate for decision making. Other barriers and facilitators are identified and discussed, and we propose four recommendations – policy briefs, transdisciplinary collaboration, policy training and co-production – for palaeoclimate scientists to maximise the potential of using their research in decision making.
- Preprint
(733 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(86 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6350', Leila Gonzales, 06 Jan 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6350', Chelsea Long, 10 Feb 2026
General:
This paper is a wonderful piece of work that helps to understand a context-specific science-policy gap. It is extremely valuable to have research like this supplying actionable recommendations that actors within these science-policy forums can implement. While this manuscript has a palaeoclimate focus, its findings are also relevant to non-palaeo science that is also utilised in decision-making processes. The manuscript is about barriers and facilitators, however, there are actionable recommendations as well, which I believe address a knowledge gap in the academic science-policy space. It would be great to see these brought to the forefront of the manuscript so they are more accessible to readers and interested parties in this space.
I have made some suggestions for the sections below in the hope that they are of use to the authors. I congratulate the work they have undertaken, and the time to analyse transcripts. Well done, and I look forward to seeing this manuscript in its final form.1. Introduction - Is very long and could be shortened considerably (consider removing paragraphs from sections ~100-130). This would help the key aims of the manuscript come through. A lot of the introduction could be moved to the discussion, and while Figure 1 was great, I think it would be more interesting if it were the barriers and facilitators identified by the semi-structured interviews in this manuscript.
2. Methods - Consider having definitions for the main themes (Evidence, Context, Temporal Resolution). This would be super helpful to have upfront in the methods to refer back to when reading the Findings.
3. Findings - Consider having a graph of some of the Findings. I totally understand that the small sample size means that it isn't as easy to translate it into a bar graph with the frequency of times forums were mentioned (e.g. IPCC, WMO), but maybe a table that has all the documents that are utilised by DPs could be helpful to visually see what DPs are interested in, rather than having to read into the Findings to get those answers. It would also be useful to know how many PS were of similar or different palaeo themes (e.g. tree rings, corals, sediments, etc) or were they all the same? Again, understand that this may not be possible if it breaks ethics by potentially making participants identifiable. But if all PS were speaking in respect to 1 or 2 specific palaeo sources, then it could be worth noting in the bias section of the Methods. Similarly, putting your Figure 1 from the introduction, but making it from your results and putting it in the Findings would be super helpful and interesting too be able to see it all in one place. My last suggestion would be to have a table summary of your recommendations in this section - again to make the results easy to find.
4. Discussion - Para 335 "...Public funding can also be seen as a safeguard against perceived biases in evidence produced or commissioned by organisations with explicit advocacy roles or particular policy agendas..." This sentence either needs a Reference or to be rephrased to say that it's a perspective coming from the DM.
-Para 370 "...In addition, as touched upon above, the source of much of this..." Get rid of "In addition" OR "as touched upon above" it doesn't need both.
It would be great to have a table or figure with the actionable recommendations clearly accessible. Further down, it is discussed that the recommendations are for the PS. Maybe I missed it, but there doesn't appear to be any mention as to why the recommendations are only for PS, and whether they are for PS individuals or for the institutions that they're working for? It is fantastic that this manuscript discusses both barriers and recommendations, but it needs to be clear that the barriers are from PS and DM perspectives, but the recommendations are only for PS.5. Conclusion - Para 545 "... the use of palaeoclimate in the IPCC was considered an facilitator..." Do you mean a facilitator not an?
Para 550 - "...actionable recommendations..." Make sure that it is clear for whom the recommendations for. Bring that to the forefront and maybe foreshadow even in the introduction that you're talking about PS here, rather than recommendations for DMs.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6350-CC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6350', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Feb 2026
General Comments
The aim of the paper is to examine why palaeoclimate data is underutilised by UK decision makers. The authors interviewed policymakers and advisors to identify potential barriers to the uptake of this information. They acknowledge that they faced challenges in carrying out their interviews due to somewhat low response rates to their emails, possibly due to the interviewees perceptions that they could not contribute knowledge. The paper is well organised and is overall a valuable contribution to this field of study.
Specific Comments
Abstract: Lines 13-14 – I’m don’t think net zero policies are a good example of how humans are framing adaptation strategies. Net zero more often is part of the discussion around mitigation rather than adaptation.
Introduction: I agree with community comment CC1 that the introduction could benefit from shortening or at least breaking up into sections.
Findings: Whilst the authors discuss how response rate were low; I couldn’t see in the methods or the findings exactly how many people responded to their interview requests. Perhaps I missed something obvious, but it would be nice to see it mentioned in the outset of the findings.
Discussions: Figure 2 is an incredibly useful figure. I was somewhat surprised that scientific journal articles ranked lower than government websites. I wonder if the arrows could be reduced to just one that says “Relevance and Reliability” given that they are both pointing in the same direction.
Line 441 – the authors refer to there being “several barriers that limit the effective transfer of knowledge…” It would be nice if they could summarise them or give examples of the kind of barriers that exist.
Conclusions: Under study reflections the authors discuss potential further work. I would add to this that it would be interesting to hear from decision makers in other countries. I’d be especially keen to see if these views are held by European decision makers given that UK decision makers often obtain their funding from European sources.
Technical Corrections
Page 6, line 140: delete “this” from “To our knowledge this there…”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6350-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 256 | 102 | 25 | 383 | 38 | 79 | 73 |
- HTML: 256
- PDF: 102
- XML: 25
- Total: 383
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 79
- EndNote: 73
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
Expanding the use of scientific knowledge in decision making processes is critical, especially in the case of policy initiatives and legislation. The integration of paleoclimate research into these processes is a key knowledge asset especially for crafting policies and initiatives for climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This manuscript is a valuable addition to science-policy communication literature in its perspective on the integration of paleoclimate research and data into policy decision making, and the exploration of the existing barriers and opportunities for this integration.
Specific Comments:
Lawrence, A., Houghton, J., Thomas, J., and Weldon, P., 2014, Where is the evidence: realising the value of grey literature for public policy and practice, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/research/where-evidence-realising-value-grey-literature-public-policy-and-practice
MacDonald, B. H., Ross, J. D., Soomai, S. S., and Wells, P. G., 2015, How information in grey literature informs policy and decision-making: A perspective on the need to understand the processes. The Grey Journal, 11:1, 7-16.
Technical corrections:
There were a few sentences that seemed to be incomplete:
L46: When palaeoclimate evidence is not considered, our understanding of climate variability is constrained to only the last ~150 years, a period that captures neither the full range of natural variability nor the frequency of rare but high impact climate events which may lead to.
L134: Building on the broader literature on science-policy barriers and facilitators outlined above, recent investigations into the barriers and facilitators of palaeo science in general (Allen et al., 2025), and palaeoecology specifically (Siggery et al., 2023)