Table 4 Participant views on IPCC in accordance with Cash’s credibility, salience and legitimacy attributes

 Invaluable repository of evidence on climate change

 Authoritative

 Provides a stamp of approval

 Work/decision-making considered credible if it refers to the IPCC

 Quality assured through rigorous peer review process

 Ensures outputs produced based on IPCC ARs are comprehensive

Language, accessibility and clarity

 Complex language is considered a reflection of the evidence base it assesses

Salience

Value and Usage

 Provides background to local decision-making

 Widespread use of the variety of IPCC products

Language, accessibility and clarity

 Technical language used in IPCC Ars limits end user understanding and use

 Limited relevance to staff (particularly those with no scientific background) involved in local decision-making and may dissuade from use

 Accessibility reduced due to complex scientific language, particularly uncertainty levels

Informing local decision-making

 Used continuously, not solely around report launch

 Content of IPCC ARs provides no new evidence to inform UK local decision-making

Legitimacy

Language, accessibility and clarity

 Technical nature of evidence too distant from end user needs and abilities

 Further translation carried out at the local level to make it specifically relevant to local context, needs and policy landscape

 Complexity of language limits use on daily basis

Informing local decision-making

 Local decision makers resort to consulting other national and locally relevant resources

 Evidence used locally is highly dependent on local policy priorities, which is often not the content of the IPCC outputs

 Useful to justify local policy on climate change where needed

 Need for key findings to be made specific to local context

 Does not incorporate evidence from or consult with local end user sufficiently to include evidence on this level