Climate adaptation game design to foster transdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration

Vigna, Ingrid; Arik, Aida; Jeuring, Jelmer; Ruin, Isabelle

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471

Preprints

24 Mar 2026

| 24 Mar 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscience Communication (GC).

Climate adaptation game design to foster transdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration

Ingrid Vigna, Aida Arik, Jelmer Jeuring, and Isabelle Ruin

Abstract. Addressing the complex challenges of climate adaptation requires transdisciplinary collaboration that bridges diverse knowledge systems across cultural and disciplinary boundaries. This paper presents insights from the "Climate Action Transdisciplinarity in Education and Research" (CATER) project, which implements game co-creation as an educational tool to foster transdisciplinary and transcultural collaboration on climate adaptation. Through annual schools, participants from diverse scientific, professional, and cultural backgrounds engage in an immersive learning process that integrates theoretical lectures, field visits, and collaborative game design. Participants develop games addressing real-world climate adaptation issues, including agricultural resilience, probabilistic forecast communication, and resource conflicts, thereby translating complex concepts into immersive, educational applications. In this paper we reflect on the co-creative process as it took place during two schools in 2023 (Kenya) and 2024 (Tanzania), and discuss game co-creation as boundary work, how it facilitates mutual learning and applies soft skills, while participants negotiate power dynamics, knowledge integration, and group facilitation challenges. A complementary evaluation using Q-methodology assessed changes in participants' perspectives on transdisciplinarity and co-production, revealing a shift from disciplinary viewpoints toward greater appreciation of collaborative, inclusive approaches in climate adaptation strategies. The findings highlight game design as an effective medium for experiential learning and transdisciplinary boundary work, although challenges remain regarding power imbalances, language barriers, and group dynamics. Importantly, the combination of game co-creation and systematic evaluation with Q-methodology offers a promising approach to enhance and assess transdisciplinary collaboration. Future CATER schools will allow us to refine these methods.

Received: 16 Mar 2026 – Discussion started: 24 Mar 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Ingrid Vigna, Aida Arik, Jelmer Jeuring, and Isabelle Ruin

Status: open (extended)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1471', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 May 2026 reply

This manuscript presents a reflective account of a multi-method approach that combines game co-creation, used as a pedagogical device, with a Q-methodology assessment, used to evaluate how the perspectives of participants on transdisciplinarity evolve during two annual schools of the CATER project (Kenya 2023 and Tanzania 2024). The topic is relevant for the readership of the journal. The empirical material is rich and the limitations are recognised in several places. I appreciated in particular the effort to assess, and not only to describe, the co-production process. However, the paper in its present form have several major weaknesses, which I detail below.
My first concern is that the theoretical framing of the notion of game is underdeveloped. The authors rely almost exclusively on the broad definition of the serious game proposed by Speelman et al. (2018), and they mobilise some other papers, but they do not engage with the foundational theories of play and game (and actual research on games for agriculture and/or environment which are at the heart of the proposed themes). This is a problem because the qualification of the participants' prototypes as serious games is never really interrogated. Some prototypes, for example the role-playing exercise on the relation between farmers and pastoralists, seem closer to a simulation or a role-play than to a game in the strict sense. I would suggest that the authors clarify what they mean precisely by game in their device, and that they position their definition with respect to the existing literature on games and games for agriculture/environment.
Second, I would add that the boundary work framing is mobilised in a rather superficial way. The notion of boundary object is central but the references are limited to Lundgren (2020) and van Bruggen et al. (2019), while the founding text of Star and Griesemer (1989), as well as Star (2010), are not cited. More importantly, the authors do not clarify what exactly constitutes the boundary object in their case, whether it is the finished game, the process of co-design, or the whole pedagogical device. I recommend making this point explicit and detailed.
My third major concern is that the causal link between game co-creation and the change of perceptions is fragile. The research design does not permit isolating the specific effect of the game co-creation from the other components of the school. The lectures, the field trip, which the authors themselves present as the most impactful element according to the participants' feedback, the informal discussions, and simply the experience of spending two weeks in an intense international and multicultural environment, could all contribute to the perception shifts observed in the post-school Q-sorts. The text oscillates between attributing the effect to the game design and attributing it to the school as a whole. This ambiguity should be assumed more clearly. Either the conclusions are reformulated to speak of the global impact of the school, with the game co-creation as an integrating device, or the authors propose, as a perspective, an evaluation design able to better identify the proper contribution of the game. The attribution/contribution of games has been the focus of some recent research.
In the same line, the hypothesis of convergence is not problematised. The hypothesis tested is that divergent perspectives tend to converge after the school, but in transdisciplinarity the preservation of diversity is also a value in itself. A premature convergence could indicate a levelling of viewpoints, or even an effect of social desirability in a group that has shared an intense common experience and that is in relation with its hosts. The authors should discuss to what extent the convergence they observe is desirable, and whether a critical opening that preserves productive disagreements would not be a better indicator of a successful transdisciplinary process.
I note also statistical limits of the Q-method analysis, which are under-discussed. The sample is small, the splitting of Factor2 is statistically very fragile to support the interpretation. The authors should justify this choice more explicitly.
A further important weakness is that the method of analysis of the qualitative data is under-specified. Authors describe well the materials collected (observation notes, daily notes and debriefing notes) but no analysis method is explained. There is no mention of a coding procedure, a thematic analysis or a content analysis with a CAQDAS. As a consequence, the qualitative results presented are narrative without traceability. This weakens the robustness of the observations, in particular the strong claims on power dynamics. I recommend that the authors describe how the qualitative material was treated, how many observers produced the notes, and how the interpretation was triangulated. Connected to this, the reflexivity on the authors' own position remains limited. The authors are at the same time designers of the school, lecturers, facilitators, observers and evaluators, and this multiple position is not really problematised: it is a basis for transdisciplinarity.
Finally, the analysis of the prototypes themselves remains mainly descriptive, and the use of the central framework is partly inaccurate. The authors could use the Triadic Game Design with its components of meaning, reality and play, to analyse how the disciplinary and cultural diversity of the groups translates into the mechanics chosen, and not only into the themes.
In conclusion, I recommend major revisions. The paper addresses a relevant and original question, and the empirical work is valuable, but need substantial revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-RC1
- EC1:
  'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 31 May 2026 reply
  
  Many thanks indeed for a thorough and excellent review of the ms. Much appreciated.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-EC1
  - CC1: 'Reply on EC1', Jelmer Jeuring, 17 Jun 2026 reply
    
    Dear reviewer #1, thanks for your constructive comments. We await feedback from reviewer #2, and provide a response in due course.
    
    Reply
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-CC1
- CC2:
  'Reply on RC1 - on behalf of the authors', Aida Arik, 07 Jul 2026 reply
  Dear reviewer, Thanks for taking the time to provide these constructive and helpful comments. Below we respond (in bold) in more detail, and provide an overview of how we will address your concerns and recommendations in a revised version of our manuscript.
  This manuscript presents a reflective account of a multi-method approach that combines game co-creation, used as a pedagogical device, with a Q-methodology assessment, used to evaluate how the perspectives of participants on transdisciplinarity evolve during two annual schools of the CATER project (Kenya 2023 and Tanzania 2024). The topic is relevant for the readership of the journal. The empirical material is rich and the limitations are recognised in several places. I appreciated in particular the effort to assess, and not only to describe, the co-production process. However, the paper in its present form have several major weaknesses, which I detail below.
  My first concern is that the theoretical framing of the notion of game is underdeveloped. The authors rely almost exclusively on the broad definition of the serious game proposed by Speelman et al. (2018), and they mobilise some other papers, but they do not engage with the foundational theories of play and game (and actual research on games for agriculture and/or environment which are at the heart of the proposed themes). This is a problem because the qualification of the participants' prototypes as serious games is never really interrogated. Some prototypes, for example the role-playing exercise on the relation between farmers and pastoralists, seem closer to a simulation or a role-play than to a game in the strict sense. I would suggest that the authors clarify what they mean precisely by game in their device, and that they position their definition with respect to the existing literature on games and games for agriculture/environment.
  Response:
  We agree that the diversity of serious games types, theories of play and game in the domain of sustainability and climate change research and practice could be better acknowledged and used to clarify our own use of the term and better qualify the games’ prototypes produced by the participants. To address this comment, we propose to do the following:
  First we propose to reinforce the introduction section (l49-58) to provide a better overview of the concepts, features and typology of serious games, and game-like applications for research and learning purposes (as Michael and Chen, 2005; Wouters et al. 2009, 2013; Laamarti et al., 2014; Djaouti et al, 2011; De Lope and Medina-Medina 2017; Becu 2020);
  
  Then partly in the introduction (starting l59), we will aim at better position the gaming approach proposed in the context of the CATER school with respect to the literature related to game-based learning for system thinking and knowledge co-creation, especially for sustainability transition and climate change engagement (Kangas, M. 2010; Mendler de Suarez, et al., 2012; Reckien and Eisenack 2013; Stanitsas et al., 2019; Lankford etal., 2020; Galeote et al., 2021; Motlagh et al, 2026). This would also allow to better qualify the partipants’ game prototypes in the “game co-creation section” (from line 154).
  
  Second, I would add that the boundary work framing is mobilised in a rather superficial way. The notion of boundary object is central but the references are limited to Lundgren (2020) and van Bruggen et al. (2019), while the founding text of Star and Griesemer (1989), as well as Star (2010), are not cited. More importantly, the authors do not clarify what exactly constitutes the boundary object in their case, whether it is the finished game, the process of co-design, or the whole pedagogical device. I recommend making this point explicit and detailed.
  Response:
  We agree that there is a potential to better embed our study in literature on boundary work. There is also room to make somewhat more explicit how we consitute the boundary objects in our study. However, we also feel that we already quite well explain in section 4.1 what we see (based on our experiences from the different schools) is the main boundary object - the game co-design process. To address your comments, we suggest to do the following:
  First, we will include the suggested references in the Introduction, by adding a short new paragraph that introduces foundational literature on boundary work, and connect this literature with the specific context of transdisciplinary research and climate adaptation. We will also already in this section specify our focus on game co-design as the primary boundary object in this study.
  
  Second, we clarify in the Discussion (section 4.1 line 402-412) in more detail how game co-design process functions in multiple ways as a boundary object. First, by allowing for participants to meaningfully contribute to the transdisciplinary exchange despite different backgrounds. Second, by enabling participants to grapple with complex problems and complex in a tangible way. Third, by functioning as a bridge between the school context and the practical reality of participants’ professional working environment.
  
  My third major concern is that the causal link between game co-creation and the change of perceptions is fragile. The research design does not permit isolating the specific effect of the game co-creation from the other components of the school. The lectures, the field trip, which the authors themselves present as the most impactful element according to the participants' feedback, the informal discussions, and simply the experience of spending two weeks in an intense international and multicultural environment, could all contribute to the perception shifts observed in the post-school Q-sorts. The text oscillates between attributing the effect to the game design and attributing it to the school as a whole. This ambiguity should be assumed more clearly. Either the conclusions are reformulated to speak of the global impact of the school, with the game co-creation as an integrating device, or the authors propose, as a perspective, an evaluation design able to better identify the proper contribution of the game. The attribution/contribution of games has been the focus of some recent research.
  Response:
  Thank you for this relevant comment. We agree that it is not possible to isolate the specific effect of the game co-creation and attribute any perception change to that aspect of the school. We will re-read the manuscript and ensure that the Q-sorts give an (exploratory) idea of how the school as a whole has had an impact of participants’ perspectives.
  Second, in the Discussion, we will add a brief reference to recent research on causal impacts of game-design/play and how these can be assessed, as well as state that we aim that, after having implemented our methodology in subsequent schools, we can provide a more empirical assessment on its suitability for this purpose.
  In the same line, the hypothesis of convergence is not problematised. The hypothesis tested is that divergent perspectives tend to converge after the school, but in transdisciplinarity the preservation of diversity is also a value in itself. A premature convergence could indicate a levelling of viewpoints, or even an effect of social desirability in a group that has shared an intense common experience and that is in relation with its hosts. The authors should discuss to what extent the convergence they observe is desirable, and whether a critical opening that preserves productive disagreements would not be a better indicator of a successful transdisciplinary process.
  Response:
  We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and agree that, in transdisciplinary settings, preserving diversity is intrinsically valuable and that premature convergence can be problematic. We propose the following modifications:
  At the end of the first paragraph of section 2.3 (line 205), we add a sentence to describe what we mean with convergence. Importantly, we will better frame convergence within a transdisciplinary research context, and stress that successful transdisciplinary work should bring people to understand each other better while still keeping important, productive disagreements visible. This framing should make it easier for the reader to better grasp subsequent results from the Q-sorts.
  
  In the revised discussion, we will clarify that the convergence observed does (in this context) not reflect homogenisation, but rather an increased mutual understanding of others’ perspectives, which we interpret as reduced siloed thinking and greater capacity to work across disciplines and countries. We also acknowledge in section 4.4 (Limitations) possible social desirability and group-dynamic effects.
  
  I note also statistical limits of the Q-method analysis, which are under-discussed. The sample is small, the splitting of Factor2 is statistically very fragile to support the interpretation. The authors should justify this choice more explicitly.
  Response:
  We appreciate your observation. While it is true that the sample size is small, this is consistent with Q-methodology, which aims to identify the structure of shared viewpoints rather than achieve statistical representativeness of a population. Thus, in using Q-methodology, small samples are methodologically appropriate as long as they capture the relevant viewpoints (Stephenson, 1953; Brown, 1980). Furthermore, even a single participant can define a factor when their Q-sort represents a coherent perspective. Regarding the splitting of Factor 2: we would like to clarify that we are not treating this as two separate factors. The Factor emerged as bipolar, meaning that some Q-sorts load positively and other negatively on the same underlying factor. This is a meaningful outcome even if one paricipant loads negatively. Opposite loadings represent contrasting positions within the same discursive structure, as long as both poles can be interpreted coherently (McKeown & Thomas, 2013; Watts & Stenner, 2012). We will clarify these points in a subsequent revision.
  A further important weakness is that the method of analysis of the qualitative data is under-specified. Authors describe well the materials collected (observation notes, daily notes and debriefing notes) but no analysis method is explained. There is no mention of a coding procedure, a thematic analysis or a content analysis with a CAQDAS. As a consequence, the qualitative results presented are narrative without traceability. This weakens the robustness of the observations, in particular the strong claims on power dynamics. I recommend that the authors describe how the qualitative material was treated, how many observers produced the notes, and how the interpretation was triangulated. Connected to this, the reflexivity on the authors' own position remains limited. The authors are at the same time designers of the school, lecturers, facilitators, observers and evaluators, and this multiple position is not really problematised: it is a basis for transdisciplinarity.
  Response:
  Indeed, our qualitative analysis was not based on a predefined coding protocol, and we will make this clearer. The qualitative material, including observation notes, daily notes, and debriefing notes, were generated by the authors throughout the school and interpreted through conversations (e.g., with participants during breaks), shared reflections (e.g., discussions during lectures), and post-school testimonies (e.g., linkedin posts by participants). This abductive approach aligns with the experiential, transdisciplinary, and multi-cultural nature of the school. We recognize that not following a formal coding procedure limits the traceability of the analysis, but we will clarify this transparently in the manuscript.
  
  We also appreciate the point about reflexivity. The authors’ multiple roles as designers, lecturers, and/or observers certainly shape what was observed and how it was interpreted. At the same time, this embeddedness was central to the school’s transdisciplinary ethos and enabled insights that would not have been accesible through external observation alone. In the manuscript, we will clarify better how our positionality both enriched and limited the analysis.
  
  Finally, the analysis of the prototypes themselves remains mainly descriptive, and the use of the central framework is partly inaccurate. The authors could use the Triadic Game Design with its components of meaning, reality and play, to analyse how the disciplinary and cultural diversity of the groups translates into the mechanics chosen, and not only into the themes.
  Response:
  We are not entirely sure we fully understand what the reviewer means by ‘central framework’ in this context, but we agree that the results section devoted to the analysis of the game prototypes could benefit from the use of ‘Triadic Game Design’ and other theoretical frameworks from Game Studies in order to better analyse the game co-creation process.
  We therefore propose shortening the descriptive section to include, in Section 3, a reflective analysis of how the sub-group co-creation process enabled participants to develop and apply their interpersonal skills in order to address the challenges associated with knowledge-sharing and decision-making in a transdisciplinary and transcultural context.
  This section will also help to better integrate our qualitative observations of the co-production process with the theoretical contributions on serious games that will be added to the introduction.
  In conclusion, I recommend major revisions. The paper addresses a relevant and original question, and the empirical work is valuable, but need substantial revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-CC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1471', Siri Veland, 21 Jun 2026 reply

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on teaching and evaluation methods through the CATER project. The paper provides an outline and analysis of an international teaching and research course for students and practitioners in the field of climate services. The overview of the game methodology and findings is comprehensive and insightful. The Q-methodology is well explained and seems well suited for the purpose of evaluating the course. The manuscript merits full publication, with some additional considerations.

First, the concept of transdisciplinarity is used throughout but the manuscript would benefit from a definition for the purpose of this manuscript, and for the purpose of the paper's analysis. Please provide a brief description of how this term is used in the paper, and how it is applied to teaching and learning. Also, which disciplines were present would also be useful information. The term transcultural is also mentioned, and would benefit from the same definition and application.

The overview of power dynamics in the groups is insightful. Could you please add a short description of how the dynamics regarding gender, language, country of origin, and affiliation were handled, or perhaps how they may have influenced discussions?

Could you provide a short account of the discourse from which the Q-samples were taken? The samples were taken from expert interviews, and a short account of the key issues may help orient the reader to experts perceive the strengths and challenges. This short presentation could helpfully include some information on how local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge are discussed in the course materials, since this emerges as a finding in the results.

The analysis of the findings from the Q-methodology seems sound, but the interpretations can use more robust evidence. From the way results are presented, Factor 2a and 2b seem to be about knowledge systems rather than disciplinary homes (line 439). Their stance on disciplinarity seems more neutral or even supportive (e.g. s19 appendix), while their polar opposite stance on local people leading international projects is perhaps the strongest in the dataset (s15, appendix). The data also seem to show that something in the course design shifted the perspective of at least two participants away from local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, and toward more neutral perspectives. While the authors may not be able to account for this shift, it seems to merit mention in the discussion. These matters may only emerge from the way results are presented, but there seems to be a need to link the data results better with the discussion to account for these matters.

The style of writing is very clear and engaging. This also means the few uses of colloquial language stand out and I suggest to change this. Line 39 "feed off..." and line 89 "we wrap up...". The paragraph line 414-418 is a repetition, but this might be an opportunity to interpret the impacts of this dynamic. Might it be relevant for the drift from F2a to 3?

A final comment is to suggest that in future iterations, the course can opt for in-person Q-sorts since this allows explanation of terms, and capturing how respondents navigate the exercise.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-RC2
- EC2: 'Thank you for RC2', David Crookall, 23 Jun 2026 reply
  
  Many thanks, Siri, for a excellent review. Much appreciated.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-EC2
- CC3:
  'Reply on RC2 - on behalf of the authors', Aida Arik, 07 Jul 2026 reply
  Thank you for your encouraging assessment of our manuscript and for the thoughtful observations you have given us to help improve the next revision, detailed in bold below.
  Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript on teaching and evaluation methods through the CATER project. The paper provides an outline and analysis of an international teaching and research course for students and practitioners in the field of climate services. The overview of the game methodology and findings is comprehensive and insightful. The Q-methodology is well explained and seems well suited for the purpose of evaluating the course. The manuscript merits full publication, with some additional considerations.
  First, the concept of transdisciplinarity is used throughout but the manuscript would benefit from a definition for the purpose of this manuscript, and for the purpose of the paper's analysis. Please provide a brief description of how this term is used in the paper, and how it is applied to teaching and learning. Also, which disciplines were present would also be useful information. The term transcultural is also mentioned, and would benefit from the same definition and application.
  Response:
  We agree that the concept of transdisciplinarity (TD) needs a formal definition. In the manuscript we follow the definition of McClure et al (2024), who describes TD as an approach that “extend(s) into new modes of doing and communicating science” . We will include this definition explicitly in the text, and explain better how it is applied in the context of the paper. Similarly, we will include a definition of transculturality that aligns with the overall approach of the CATER schools.
  
  We will list key disciplines in Section 1.1., both for the disciplines represented in the teaching modules, as well as examples of disciplines from participants (line 126).
  
  The overview of power dynamics in the groups is insightful. Could you please add a short description of how the dynamics regarding gender, language, country of origin, and affiliation were handled, or perhaps how they may have influenced discussions?
  Response:
  Power dynamics were handled largely ad hoc, but the school facilitators made deliberate efforts to create balanced and inclusive group environments. This included attention to gender, disciplinary background, and geographic representation among both participants and lecturers (the latter being more challenging). These dynamics clearly shaped discussions. Small group work was used specifically to encourage fully participation, and school facilitators actively supported quieter participants throughout the course to help them fell comfortable in participating, especially if it seemed to be coming from a cultural basis. We observed that prior experience, as well as language, often influenced how confidently some participants engaged with activities. These dynamics cannot be fully controlled, but the school facilitators worked to mitigate them by beginning the school with modules on facilitation, as well as allowing each group to develop its own charter around fair participation. While our reflections are observational rather than data-driven, they help contextualize how participation varied across groups and shaped how school facilitators worked to encourage participation throughout the course. We will add to our description of power dynamics to clarify your particular question.
  Could you provide a short account of the discourse from which the Q-samples were taken? The samples were taken from expert interviews, and a short account of the key issues may help orient the reader to experts perceive the strengths and challenges. This short presentation could helpfully include some information on how local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge are discussed in the course materials, since this emerges as a finding in the results.
  Response:
  The expert interviews were designed to surface underlying tensions around climate change adaptation and the use of climate services, with particular relevance to Europe-Africa cross-relations. The councourse was constructed mainly from these interviews, but also supplemented with selected material from relevant literature and media sources. To guide both the interviews and Q-sampling, we used a provisional framework organized along three axes: method, knowledge, and skill sets. These were meant to reflect what we anticipated to hear in the expert discourse. Since our framework served mainly as an internal structure, we it is not detailed in the paper as it felt beyond the scope. However, we can add a brief explanation for transparency.
  
  The interviews, concourse, and Q-sampling were developed fully independently from the course material. However, the suggestion well-taken to clarify how the Q-method findings and the course materials intersected (particularly around the plurality of knowledges). In our revision we can better highlight where the findings and the course material intersect.
  
  The analysis of the findings from the Q-methodology seems sound, but the interpretations can use more robust evidence. From the way results are presented, Factor 2a and 2b seem to be about knowledge systems rather than disciplinary homes (line 439). Their stance on disciplinarity seems more neutral or even supportive (e.g. s19 appendix), while their polar opposite stance on local people leading international projects is perhaps the strongest in the dataset (s15, appendix). The data also seem to show that something in the course design shifted the perspective of at least two participants away from local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge, and toward more neutral perspectives. While the authors may not be able to account for this shift, it seems to merit mention in the discussion. These matters may only emerge from the way results are presented, but there seems to be a need to link the data results better with the discussion to account for these matters.
  Response:
  Thank you for this helpful observation. In revising the manuscript, we agree that it is worthwhile to revisit the participant comments with some hindsight to ensure our interpretations, particularly of Factors 2a and 2b, are as clearly grounded in the data as possible. We appreciate the suggestion that the distinction between these two factors (2a and 2b) may have somewhat over-interpreted, and we will refine the text accordingly. We will also add a brief note in the discussion, as suggested, acknowledging the participant shifts, even if we cannot fully account for their reasons. More generally, we will go through the discussion text to see how to strengthen the connection between the presented results, the data, and our interpretation.
  The style of writing is very clear and engaging. This also means the few uses of colloquial language stand out and I suggest to change this. Line 39 "feed off..." and line 89 "we wrap up...". The paragraph line 414-418 is a repetition, but this might be an opportunity to interpret the impacts of this dynamic. Might it be relevant for the drift from F2a to 3?
  Response:
  Thank you. We will revise these instances of colloquial language and adress the noted repetition, using it as an opportunity to clarify the interpretive point raised about the factor drift.
  A final comment is to suggest that in future iterations, the course can opt for in-person Q-sorts since this allows explanation of terms, and capturing how respondents navigate the exercise.
  Response:
  We appreciate this suggestion and have already implemented a similar change since this manuscript was drafted. While it is not logistically possible for the ‘before’ sorts, we have taken time at the end of the school for in-person ‘after’ sorts.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1471-CC3

Ingrid Vigna, Aida Arik, Jelmer Jeuring, and Isabelle Ruin

Viewed

Total article views: 672 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
455	178	39	672	32	45

HTML: 455
PDF: 178
XML: 39
Total: 672
BibTeX: 32
EndNote: 45

Views and downloads (calculated since 24 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2026	308	80	31	419
Apr 2026	87	52	4	143
May 2026	39	40	4	83
Jun 2026	21	6	0	27
Jul 2026	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 24 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2026	308	80	31	419
Apr 2026	87	52	4	143
May 2026	39	40	4	83
Jun 2026	21	6	0	27
Jul 2026	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 671 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 671 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 07 Jul 2026

Short summary

The CATER project promotes transdisciplinary and transcultural collaboration on climate adaptation through annual schools. The schools engage participants from diverse backgrounds in co-designing games addressing real-world challenges. Results show game design fosters mutual learning and shifts perspectives toward collaboration. Despite challenges like power dynamics and language barriers, the approach shows promise to enhance and assess transdisciplinary collaboration for climate adaptation.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0