Medium-sized cities face important climate change challenges, such as extended droughts and increases in water pressure. To co-create strategies that can effectively tackle such challenges, public administrators require a comprehensive understanding of available options, their efficiency, and organisational capacities. The Interreg North Sea DISCO project aims to address this challenge by co-creating a framework that assesses the maturity of the city administration when co-creating with digital solutions for climate adaptation purposes. The DISCO consortium involves a start-up, two regional authorities, three mediumsized cities, and five research institutes from five countries. This ongoing research paper presents the methodological approach adopted by the DISCO consortium. We position this work within a generative governance perspective, and tools such as virtual reality and twin cities are seen as generative tools. The framework's development involved extensive literature reviews and consortium discussions, incorporating feedback from the partners. The current version, named Self-assessment Framework for Innovative Cocreation (SELFIC), is based on the Assessment of Organisational Maturity for Co-creation Model, which has been refined with DISCO partners' input. We are now processing the second round of feedback and preparing its publication in a digital environment. The final version of the framework will incorporate elements related to a digital tools catalogue and digital literacy. Other researchers within the consortium are developing these elements.
Medium-sized cities in the North Sea region face important challenges regarding climate change adaptation. Its urban areas are expected to experience increased pressure due to water scarcity, droughts, floods and heatwaves [1]. To address these challenges, public administrators aim to accelerate adaptation in their cities. However, this acceleration requires collaborative approaches that consider the effectiveness of the digital solutions, an equitable perspective, and organisational capacities. All these requirements make it challenging for public administrators to decide on and implement the needed adaptation strategies. This issue results from dealing with the complexity of available data/digital solutions for decision-making, along with the need for timely and just involvement of stakeholders and target groups.
Against this background, we position our work within a generative governance perspective, which focuses on collaborative co-creation away from hierarchical impositions and involves the creation of interactive spaces to solve defined problems [2]. This focus allows us to see digital solutions, such as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and digital twins, as generative tools that support co-creation and help actors visualise and assess future options [2]. However, generativity (capacity to enable) is not limited to the use of tools; it also concerns institutional conditions and capabilities. It requires understanding how digital tools interact with organisational maturity, stakeholder networks, and broader political contexts [2].
To respond to adaptation and co-creation challenges in the context of the North Sea region, eleven partners from five countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden) participate in the DISCO (Digital Solutions for Climate Adaptation) project. These partners are the startup AMACHAN, Jade University, University of Oldenburg, University of Twente, VIA University College, Flanders Environment Agency (VMM), Oldenburgisch-Ostfriesische Wasserverband (OOWV), Sweden Water Research, City of Malmö, Municipality of Vejle, and the Municipality of Zwolle. The DISCO project is co-financed by the Interreg North Sea programme (2024-2028). It aims to raise the innovation capacities of governmental organisations and citizens to employ digital solutions to accelerate climate adaptation, and follows a three-step approach: 1. Identify needs: Develop an assessment framework to identify the specific needs of governmental organisations. 2. Co-creation processes: Initiate co-creation processes in various locations within the North
Sea region, resulting in increased innovation capacity among stakeholders in pilot areas. 3. Sustainability and replication: Focus on ensuring the sustainability of developed solutions and their replication to boost innovation capacities in the region’s organizations. In the first stage (2024-2025), the project team focuses on co-creating an assessment framework that public administrators can employ to assess their organisational capacities for co-creation in developing and implementing adaptation projects when using digital solutions as generative tools. Based on this focus, the framework's development takes a generative governance perspective [2], [3], [4], [5]. Generative governance focuses on how platforms can support co-creation approaches via different arenas [3]. From a scholarly perspective, while institutional and digital platforms can enable co-creation [3], there is limited understanding of the conditions and capacities that can enable public administrators to implement co-creation approaches for sustainability [5], [6], including climate adaptation strategies. To address this gap, as a first step of the DISCO consortium, we aim to co-create a framework that assesses the maturity of the city administration when co-creating with digital solutions for climate adaptation purposes. The framework is expected to have three components: 1) digital tools catalogue, 2) organisational maturity, and 3) digital literacy.
This ongoing research paper presents our co-creation approach to developing the organisational maturity assessment and is divided into four sections. Section 2 presents the methodological process for developing the organisational maturity assessment. Section 3 shows the results and the latest version of the framework. Finally, section 4 presents the conclusions and the future steps.
The methodology for developing the organisational maturity assessment consisted of three steps.
The first step included a Google (Scholar) review of the literature on digitalisation, co-creation, and
climate adaptation. The identified research focused on digital governance [7], digital
transformation [8], triple transition (green, social and digital transition) [9], co-creation and the
green transition [5], [
As a second step, based on the partners’ feedback, we conducted a literature review in Scopus to identify both frameworks or models developed to assess organisational maturity in co-created projects and generative governance due to the role envisioned for the tools in the pilot projects. The review was limited to the fields of management, social science and environmental science. In the search, we used the keywords “co-creation” and “maturity”, and identified 47 documents from which three articles were of interest ([6], [13], [14]). Meanwhile, in the search using the keyword “generative governance”, eight documents were identified, and four were selected ([3], [4], [15], [16]) for further analysis based on their potential relevance for the DISCO project.
As a third step, the selected articles were reviewed, and internal discussions among the University of Twente team were held to propose the organisational assessment approach to the project partners and to decide if an existing framework or model could be used. As part of these activities, the University of Twente team presented and discussed the research review with project partners during the consortium meetings in October and November 2024. The assessment model developed by Jukic et al. (2022) [6] was selected due to its focus on the maturity of European public organisations for co-creation. The first author met Jukic online to explain the DISCO project and to obtain her opinion on using her model for the project. She was very positive in this regard. Figure 1 shows the assessment model [6], which divides the drivers and barriers of co-creation into three categories: 1) organisational capacity focusing on structure, culture, competencies and resources; 2) staff capacity composed of knowledge and skills, attitudes, and autonomy; and 3) wider political and normative context under which public organisations act.
A modified version of the framework was presented by University of Twente researchers to the project partners during the consortium meeting in December 2024 (See Appendix A). Then, they asked the partners to provide feedback on how the model could be further tailored for application in DISCO and to evaluate its usefulness and relevance to the project. A template for providing feedback was shared with the partners via the online file-sharing platform, and a cell in each element of the model, with the name of each partner, was added for feedback. In this way, it was easy to identify who was providing the feedback, and it proved helpful to discuss specific concerns that some partners had. The partners had about a month to provide the feedback, and during the consortium meeting in February 2025, the University of Twente team presented the feedback. The following section summarises the main points and presents the results.
The results section is divided into two subsections. The first subsection summarises the feedback the DISCO consortium partners provided, and the second subsection presents the revised version of the assessment framework. 3.1.
The University of Twente team processed the feedback from all the project partners and presented the results during the consortium meeting in February 2025. The feedback was summarised as follows:
More focused wording of the questions by referring to the pilots Revision of the “quality targets” concept, which was difficult to understand Revise the wording of the questions, such as “regularly” or “high profile” Divide or simplify the questions that include various topics If necessary, provide examples when the question is complex Reformulation of questions that can be complex Translation into the language of local authorities Rename from assessment to “self-assessment.”
Not all recommendations were in the same direction; the partners had some discrepancies in how the questions could be answered. Some partners suggested that the questions could be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Others proposed a scale, and others agreed with open questions. The partner from the Municipality of Zwolle proposed a format in which options are already given. To solve this discrepancy, the University of Twente team prepared an activity for the consortium meeting in February 2025. Using Wooclap, the governmental partners were asked which type of answers they would like to have in the assessment, and the majority voted for the selection of options. Hence, we agreed that future feedback will be required to improve the potential given options. 3.2.
Based on the feedback, this sub-section presents the revised version of the self-assessment framework for organisational maturity. The framework respects the original elements developed by Jukic et al. (2022). However, the questions were rephrased to focus on the pilots, and options were now given for the answers. Additionally, a concluding question per subgroup was added. Those questions start in the assessment with the word Conclusion, and provide a Likert scale that ranges from poor to excellent. We plan to employ those results to visualise them in a spider-web graph.
1.1.1. Readiness for change of existing institutional structure: Has your organisation required structural changes to facilitate social participation in the pilot/project? This can be changes in the structure of the involved departments.
Changes Changes are Significant Moderate Minor changes No changes required but no being planned changes changes required action
1.1.2. Network governance/highly connected structure. How connected is your organisation with a network that can facilitate the implementation of the pilot/project?
No connected Connections Limited Moderately Well- Highly are being connected connected connected connected planned 1.1.3. Collaborative culture. How is the collaborative culture in your organisation for facilitating co-creation in the pilot?
No Collaborative Limited Moderate Good Highly collaborative culture is being collaboration collaboration collaboration collaborative culture developed
1.1.4. Quality targets: To what degree does your organisation consider aspects such as inclusivity and innovative approaches for the pilot?
No Planning Limited Moderately Well Highly consideration consideration consideration considered considered considered 1.1.5. Conclusion on structural characteristics of the organisation: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess the structural characteristics of your organisation for the pilot/project implementation?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
1.2.1 Continuous communication: Does your organisation have continuous and mutual communication with external stakeholders for the pilot/project implementation? No Limited and no- Limited and Often but no- Often and communication mutual mutual mutual mutual communication communication communication communication Continuous and mutual communication 1.2.2 Engaging activities with stakeholders: Is your organisation engaged with stakeholders in activities regarding the pilot/project?
No Planning Limited Good Very good Highly engagement engagement engagement engagement engagement engaged 1.2.3 Structured stakeholder analysis: Has your organisation conducted a stakeholder analysis to identify the actors that need to be part of the co-creation process in the pilot/project? No analysis Planning Limited Moderate Comprehensive Highly analysis analysis analysis analysis detailed analysis 1.2.4 Existence of specialised staff members: Are staff members from your organisation collaborating with residents regarding the pilot/project?
No collaboration Planning Limited Good Very good Highly active collaboration collaboration collaboration collaboration collaboration 1.2.5 Evidence about impact: Does your organisation evaluate and communicate the positive impact of the pilot/project?
No evaluation, Rarely evaluates Only evaluates Rarely Regularly no or or evaluates and evaluates and communication communicates communicates communicates communicates Consistently evaluates and communicates 1.2.6 Conclusion on communication: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess your organisation's communication for the pilot/project?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
1.3.1 Funding and incentives: To what extent does your organisation have appropriate funding for the pilot/project?
No funding Requesting Under-funded Limited Moderate Adequate funding funding funding funding 1.3.2 Budgetary benefits: To what extent does your organisation benefit from incentives for the pilot/project?
No benefits
Requesting benefits
Not enough benefits
Limited benefits
Moderate benefits
Adequate benefits 1.3.3 Conclusion on funding: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess the financial capacity of your organisation for the pilot/project?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
2.1.1 Soft skills staff members: How skilled is the staff in your organisation in dealing with conflict management, facilitation, and negotiation during the pilot/project?
No skills Developing Limited skills Moderate skills Adequate skills Highly skilled skills 2.1.2 Co-creation education and training: Have the staff in your organisation received education and training focused on co-creation and useful for the pilot/project?
No training Under training Limited Moderate Adequate Extensive training training training training 2.1.3 Conclusion on competencies: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess the staff capacity of your organisation for the pilot/project?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
2.2.1 Supportive perceptions on co-creation: Does the staff in your organisation generally have a positive perception of co-creation pilots/projects?
No positive Being developed Limited, but Moderately Very positive Highly positive positive positive 2.2.2 Awareness of the benefits of collaboration with the public: How aware is the staff in your organisation of the benefits of public participation in the pilot/project?
No awareness Being developed Limited Moderate Adequate Highly aware awareness awareness awareness 2.2.3 Desire for positive public image of the public organization: Does the staff in your organisation consider these types of pilots/projects as part of creating a positive public image? No consideration Developing Limited Sometimes Mostly Always consideration consideration considered considered considered 2.2.4 Top-level public servants take the role of advocates of co-creation: Do the top management in your organisation support the pilot/project?
No support Starting support Limited Moderate Adequate Highly support support support supportive 2.2.5 Conclusion on mindset: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess the mindset aspect of your organisation regarding the pilot/project?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
2.3.1 Level of decision-making autonomy: Does the staff in your organisation have enough autonomy to implement the pilot/project?
No autonomy Developing Limited Moderate Adequate Highly autonomy autonomy autonomy autonomy autonomous 2.3.2 Readiness to include external co-creators: Does the staff in your organisation have the flexibility to include external co-creators’ in the pilot/project?
No flexibility Developing Limited Moderate Adequate Highly flexible flexibility flexibility flexibility flexibility 2.3.3 Tailor-made solutions matching needs of different groups: Does the staff in your organisation take into account the needs of different groups in the pilot/project? No consideration Developing Limited Moderate Adequate Highly consideration consideration consideration consideration considered 2.3.4 Conclusion on autonomy: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess the autonomy of your organisation to implement the pilot/project?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
3.1 National legislation in favour of co-creation: How do you consider that national legislation supports the pilot/project?
No support Developing Limited Moderate Adequate Highly support support support support supportive 3.2 Flexible regulative framework: Do you consider that the regulations that apply to your organisation are flexible enough to facilitate the implementation of the pilot/project? No flexibility Undergoing Limited Moderate Adequate Highly flexible reforms flexibility flexibility flexibility Developing collaboration
Limited collaboration 3.3 Collaborative institutional environment: Do you consider that your organisation (from a wider perspective) has a collaborative environment that facilitates the implementation of the pilot/project?
No collaboration Moderate collaboration
Adequate collaboration
Highly collaborative Developing support
Limited support 3.4 Support and promotion of co-creation by international organisations: Is your organisation been supported by international organisations, such as the OECD or EU, to implement the pilot/project?
No support Moderate support
Adequate support
Highly supported 3.5 Strong political will for co-creation: Do you consider that there is political will beyond your organisation to support co-creation in the pilot/project?
No will Developing will Limited will Moderate will Adequate will High will 3.6 Conclusion on the normative and political context: Considering your previous responses, how would you assess the political and normative context under which your organisation implements the project/pilot?
Poor (0) Good (1) Very good (2) Excellent (3)
This paper presented the development of a self-assessment framework for organisational maturity within the DISCO project, focusing on how public administrations can strengthen their capacity for co-creation using digital tools for climate adaptation. Our generative governance focus has influenced our work in two main ways. 1) It helps us to frame digital tools not just as efficiency enhancers but as generative tools that can support mutual learning and collaboration. So, they can serve as shared reference points to enhance co-creation. Second, it helps us highlight the institutional and relational capacities necessary to use these tools effectively. The framework aims to assess technical readiness and key factors like collaborative culture, leadership support, stakeholder communication, and regulatory flexibility, all essential for creating environments where co-creation can thrive.
The revised version of the framework has incorporated the feedback from the DISCO partners. The new version emphasises that it is a self-assessment. Hence, it has been named the Selfassessment Framework for Innovative Co-creation (SELFIC). SELFIC refers explicitly to the pilot/project and assumes that such projects use digital solutions/tools and aim at innovative strategies for climate adaptation. The questions were also simplified and reformulated to be more explicit. Being focused on the pilot has also helped to make the questions more explicit about what they refer to. However, this is still an ongoing process. This new version was presented to the DISCO partners during the consortium meeting in April 2025 in Oldenburg, Germany. There, we had a workshop to receive a second round of feedback. This new version was presented within a digital participatory platform developed by the consortium partner AMACHAN. AMACHAN provides a platform that connects citizens, social innovation approaches, and decision-makers. Their expertise lies in developing questionnaires and maps that can support co-creation approaches.
Currently, we are incorporating questions related to the digital tools catalogue and digital literacy to develop a more comprehensive framework for DISCO. We are also considering adding other questions about the co-creation process itself, as a link to the second step of DISCO. These additional aspects are being developed by other research partners, with whom we often communicate to ensure the alignment of the different tasks that we are developing. Once we have the final version of the framework, we plan to ask the project partners for support in translating the questionnaire into the languages of their local authorities. Despite the aim of developing a comprehensive framework, we are aware of the consortium’s limitations. The development and application of the project are related to cities in Northern Europe, such as Zwolle, which are considered frontrunners in climate adaptation [17]. Therefore, their needs differ from those of the cities considered followers. Being aware of such limitations is important as we aim, by the end of the project in 2028, to have developed a framework that can be useful to various cities in the Northern region and, if possible, in other European regions.
[1] G. Özerol, N. Dolman, H. Bormann, H. Bressers, K. Lulofs, and M. Böge, “Urban water management and climate change adaptation: A self-assessment study by seven midsize cities in the North Sea Region,” Sustainable Cities and Society, pp. 102066–102066, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102066. [2] C. Ansell and J. Torfing, Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2021. doi: 10.1017/9781108765381. [3] S. Van Elk and B. Regal, “The opportunities and challenges of politically designed co-creation platforms,” Policy & Politics, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 579–601, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1332/030557321X16799905123057. [4] L. D. W. Thomas and R. Tee, “Generativity: A systematic review and conceptual framework,”
Int J Management Reviews, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 255–278, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12277. [5] J. Torfing, C. Ansell, and E. Sørensen, “Metagoverning the Co-Creation of Green Transitions: A
Main elements
Sub-elements
Questions 1. Capacity of 1.1. Structural the characteristics of organisation organisation s (structure, culture, competencies 1.1.1. Readiness for change of existing institutional structure: Has your organisation had structural changes to facilitate social participation with digital tools in climate adaptation projects? This can involve changes in the structure of Your comments: Is the question relevant? Could you answer it? If not do you have a proposal? VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: departments or the creation of communication channels. 1.1.2. Network governance/highly connected structure. Is your organisation part of a well-connected network that facilitates the use of digital tools for climate adaptation? 1.1.3. Collaborative culture. Does your organisation have a collaborative culture that facilitates co-creation with the use of digital tools for climate adaptation projects? VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 1.1.4. Quality targets: Does your VIA: AMACHAN: organisation consider quality targets (e.g. OOWV: UOL: inclusivity or innovations) in climate JADE: SWR: adaptation projects using digital tools? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below VIA: AMACHAN: average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you OOWV: UOL: assess the structural characteristics of your organisation for using JADE: SWR: digital tools for climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 1.2. 1.2.1 Continuous, two-way VIA: AMACHAN: Communication communication: Does your organisation OOWV: UOL: have a bilateral and continues communication JADE: SWR: with external stakeholders regarding digital Zwolle: Veijle: tools for climate adaptation? VMM: CoM: 1.2.2 Engaging activities with VIA: AMACHAN: stakeholders: Does your organisation OOWV: UOL: regularly engage stakeholders in activities JADE: SWR: regarding the use of digital tools for climate Zwolle: Veijle: adaptation? VMM: CoM: 1.2.3 Structured stakeholder analysis: Has VIA: AMACHAN: your organisation conducted a stakeholder OOWV: UOL: analysis to identify the actors that need to be JADE: SWR: part of the co-creation process when using Zwolle: Veijle: digital tools? VMM: CoM: 1.2.4 Existence of specialised staff VIA: AMACHAN: members: Are staff members from your OOWV: UOL: organisation actively collaborating with JADE: SWR: residents regarding digital tools in climate Zwolle: Veijle: adaptation projects? VMM: CoM: 1.2.5 Evidence about impact: Does your VIA: AMACHAN: organisation formally assess and OOWV: UOL: communicate the positive impact of co- JADE: SWR: creation using digital tools for climate Zwolle: Veijle: adaptation? VMM: CoM: Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below VIA: AMACHAN: average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you OOWV: UOL: assess your organisation's communication for using digital tools for JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 1.3. Financial 1.3.1Funding and incentives: Does your VIA: AMACHAN: capacity organisation have appropriate funding for co- OOWV: UOL: creation activities involving digital tools for JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 1.3.2 Budgetary benefits: Does your VIA: AMACHAN: organisation benefit from budget incentives OOWV: UOL: for co-creation processes using digital tools in JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 2. capacity
Staff
Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you assess the financial capacity of your organisation for using digital tools for climate adaptation projects? 2.3 Competences 2.1.1 Soft skills by frontline staff members: Do frontline public servants in your organisation possess soft skills, such as conflict management, facilitation, and negotiation, regarding digital tools for climate adaptation projects? 2.1.2 Co-creation education and trainings: Have frontline public servants in your organisation received education and training on co-creation processes that use digital tools for climate adaptation projects? Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you assess the staff capacity of your organisation for using digital tools for climate adaptation projects? 2.2 Mindset 2.2.1 Supportive perceptions on cocreation: Does your organisation generally have a positive perception on co-creation projects that use digital tools for climate adaptation projects? 2.2.2 Awareness of the benefits from collaboration with the public: What is your organisation’s perception of public participation in climate adaptation projects that include digital tools in co-creation processes? 2.2.3 Desire for positive public image of VIA: AMACHAN: the public organization: Does your OOWV: UOL: organisation consider co-creation with digital JADE: SWR: tools for climate adaptation as part of creating Zwolle: Veijle: a positive public image? VMM: CoM: 2.2.4 High profile public servants take the VIA: AMACHAN: role of advocates of co-creation: Does your OOWV: UOL: high-profile public servants in your JADE: SWR: organisation support projects that use digital Zwolle: Veijle: tools for climate adaptation projects? VMM: CoM: Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below VIA: AMACHAN: average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you OOWV: UOL: assess the mindset aspect of your organisation for using digital tools JADE: SWR: for climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 2.3 Autonomy 2.3.1 Level of decision-making VIA: AMACHAN: autonomy: Does your organisation have OOWV: UOL: enough autonomy to use digital tools in JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 2.3.2 Readiness to give significant discretion to external co-creators: Is your organisation flexible enough to provide external co-creators with enough discretion in projects that use digital technologies for climate adaptation projects? 2.3.3 Tailor-made solutions matching VIA: AMACHAN: needs of each individual: To what extent OOWV: UOL: does your organisation take into account the JADE: SWR: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: VIA: AMACHAN: OOWV: UOL: JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 3. The wider political and normative context in which the public organization acts needs of different individuals when using Zwolle: Veijle: digital tools for climate adaptation projects? VMM: CoM: Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below VIA: AMACHAN: average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you OOWV: UOL: assess the autonomy of your organisation for using digital tools for JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 3.1 National legislation in favour of co-creation: Do you VIA: AMACHAN: consider that national legislation supports co-creation processes OOWV: UOL: that use digital technologies for climate adaptation projects? JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 3.2 Flexible regulative framework: Do you consider that the VIA: AMACHAN: regulations that apply to your organisation are flexible enough to OOWV: UOL: facilitate co-creation processes that use digital technologies for JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 3.3 Collaborative institutional environment: Do you consider VIA: AMACHAN: that your organisation (from a wider perspective) has a collaborative OOWV: UOL: environment that facilitates the use of digital technologies for JADE: SWR: climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 3.4 Support and promotion of co-creation by international VIA: AMACHAN: organizations: Do you consider that your organisation has support OOWV: UOL: from international organisations, such as the OECD or EU, to use JADE: SWR: digital technologies for climate adaptation projects? Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: 3.5 Strong political will for co-creation: Do you consider that VIA: AMACHAN: there is political will to support co-creation in your organisation to OOWV: UOL: use digital technologies for climate adaptation projects? JADE: SWR: Zwolle: Veijle: VMM: CoM: Considering your previous responses, on a scale of poor, below VIA: AMACHAN: average, average, good, very good and excellent, how would you OOWV: UOL: assess political and normative context under which your JADE: SWR: organisation works using digital tools for climate adaptation Zwolle: Veijle: projects? VMM: CoM:
The DISCO project (2024-2028) is part of the Interreg North Sea Program co-funded by the European Union.