Article citationsMore>>

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Mapping Climate Services for Disaster Risk Management: A Systematic Review and Research Gaps from a Policy Process Perspective

  AUTHORS: Aboubacar Issaka Ousman Gaoh, Wolfram Laube, Georges Abbevi Abbey, Moussa Waongo

  KEYWORDS: Climate Services, Disaster Risk Management, Policy Process, Science-Policy Interface, Institutional Analysis

  JOURNAL NAME: American Journal of Climate Change, Vol.13 No.2, July 1, 2024

  ABSTRACT: Climate services (CS) are crucial for mitigating and managing the impacts and risks associated with climate-induced disasters. While evidence over the past decade underscores their effectiveness across various domains, particularly agriculture, to maximize their potential, it is crucial to identify emerging priority areas and existing research gaps for future research agendas. As a contribution to this effort, this paper employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to review the state-of-the-art in the field of climate services for disaster risk management. A comprehensive search across five literature databases combined with a snowball search method using ResearchRabbit was conducted and yielded 242 peer-reviewed articles, book sections, and reports over 2013-2023 after the screening process. The analysis revealed flood, drought, and food insecurity as major climate-related disasters addressed in the reviewed literature. Major climate services addressed included early warning systems, (sub)seasonal forecasts and impact-based warnings. Grounded in the policy processes’ theoretical perspective, the main focus identified and discussed three prevailing policy-oriented priority areas: 1) development of climate services, 2) use-adoption-uptake, and 3) evaluation of climate services. In response to the limitations of the prevalent supply-driven and top-down approach to climate services promotion, co-production emerges as a cross-cutting critical aspect of the identified priority areas. Despite the extensive research in the field, more attention is needed, particularly pronounced in the science-policy interface perspective, which in practice bridges scientific knowledge and policy decisions for effective policy processes. This perspective offers a valuable analytical lens as an entry point for further investigation. Hence, future research agendas would generate insightful evidence by scrutinizing this critical aspect given its importance to institutions and climate services capacity, to better understand intricate facets of the development and the integration of climate services into disaster risk management.