How can we include local perspectives into probabilistic risk and adaptation modelling? Case studies of participatory drought risk assessment from Pakistan and Zambia

Droughts are becoming more frequent, severe, and spatially extensive, placing unprecedented pressure on socioecological systems. Robust drought risk assessment is therefore essential to inform targeted adaptation actions and public investment decisions. However, conventional indicator-based approaches, often built on global secondary datasets, typically underrepresent context-specific vulnerabilities, equity dimensions, and intersectoral linkages, and rarely translate quantitative risk estimates into implementable and fiscally viable adaptation pathways.

This contribution presents an enhanced, participatory drought risk assessment methodology based on an extended Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) Framework, applied in Zambia and Pakistan. The framework couples probabilistic drought hazard modelling, high-resolution exposure mapping, asset-specific vulnerability functions, and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of adaptation pathways within a structured, stakeholder-led process. ECA’s analytical backbone is the open-source CLIMADA modeling platform, which enables transparent, reproducible, and scale-agnostic integration of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability components. The modular architecture allows consistent application across sectors and spatial scales while remaining adaptable to locally defined data, assumptions, and stakeholder priorities. In addition to economic losses, non-economic impacts—such as food insecurity, service disruption, and social protection needs—are explicitly represented, enabling a more systemic representation of drought risk.

A core feature of the framework is the integration of stakeholder perspectives throughout the assessment process. National and subnational authorities, technical agencies, and local experts contribute to shaping the study scope, prioritizing key assets, validating assumptions and cost estimates, identifying feasible adaptation options, and assessing their effectiveness. Adaptation investment pathways are co-developed as spatially and temporally sequenced portfolios of measures, and CBAs are conducted to support prioritization under fiscal constraints. This participatory design addresses common limitations of externally driven climate risk modelling, including insufficient consideration of local knowledge, institutional constraints, and power asymmetries in knowledge production. The resulting pathways are not only technically sound but also socially approved and relevant for decision-makers.

Implementation in Zambia and Pakistan follows a series of co-development stages involving workshops, webinars, questionnaires, and direct consultation with stakeholders. In Pakistan, the resulting adaptation pathways are translated into Planning Commission Pro Formas, creating a direct mechanism for integrating scientific evidence into national public investment planning. In Zambia, outputs are operationalized through a Drought Risk and Adaptation Platform—an interactive, user-friendly dashboard developed in consultation with end users to support sustained uptake and institutional learning.

The two case studies demonstrate how participatory, risk-based, and economically grounded drought assessments can inform multisectoral adaptation strategies and strengthen national and sub-national decision-making capacities. By coupling advanced risk modelling with equitable, co-production processes and quantitative evaluation, this work provides a replicable framework for bridging science, policy, and practice to manage systemic drought risks in drought-prone regions.