_Published October 3, 2025_ # **Introduction** Climate adaptation and resilience require **unprecedented coordination** across diverse stakeholders – from local planners and engineers to policymakers and funders. The challenges posed by climate change (floods, wildfires, sea-level rise, etc.) are complex and interconnected, often stretching beyond the capacity of any single organization or sector[^1]. In this context, _communities of practice_ – networks of professionals who share knowledge and learn together – have emerged as a tool for accelerating learning and aligning efforts on climate solutions[^2][^3]. Yet, traditional approaches to professional networks have faced bottlenecks, such as information silos and fragmented efforts[^4]. For example, an engineer in one city working on flood defences might never exchange insights with a planner in another city working on wildfire recovery, even if their challenges overlap – leading to duplicated efforts and missed opportunities[^5]. ## **What is the missing ingredient that can bind these efforts together?** Recent insights from psychology and game theory point to the importance of _common knowledge_ – the state in which _everyone knows something, and knows that everyone else knows it, and so on ad infinitum_[^6][^7]. Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker argues that this technical notion of common knowledge is in fact _“the secret engine of social life,”_ enabling humans to coordinate actions and expectations on a vast scale [^8][^9]. Common knowledge means **shared understanding that is mutually acknowledged** – _everyone is on the same page_. This white paper examines **how common knowledge facilitates better coordination and explores its application to communities of practice**. We draw on academic theory (including game theory and cognitive science), practical examples (from energy systems to nature-based solutions), and lessons from the field to show that when “everyone knows that everyone knows,” collaboration becomes smoother and more effective. The goal of this whitepaper is to provide policymakers, practitioners, and funders with a clear, accessible analysis – with strong evidence – of why building common knowledge should be a cornerstone of climate resilience efforts. ## **Overview** 1. We begin by unpacking the concept of common knowledge and its role in coordination, using illustrative examples and key insights from research. 2. Next, we discuss communities of practice in the climate adaptation arena, highlighting their value for knowledge sharing and collective action. 3. We then bridge these topics, examining how fostering common knowledge within and across communities of practice can enhance coordination – whether in an energy sector network or a nature-based solutions coalition. 4. Finally, we offer recommendations on harnessing these ideas (for example, through open knowledge platforms, public commitments, and strategic convening) to boost the impact of climate adaptation initiatives. # **Common Knowledge: The Key to Coordination** In everyday language, “common knowledge” often just means something everybody knows. But in the technical sense used in logic and game theory, **common knowledge** is a stricter condition: _not only does everyone know X, but everyone knows that everyone knows X, and everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows X, and so on, ad infinitum_ [^10]. This recursive definition might sound abstract, but it captures a crucial aspect of how we coordinate our actions. As Pinker notes, people sometimes smile or roll their eyes when first hearing the definition, because it seems to involve a dizzying infinite regress [^11]. Yet we humans routinely achieve common knowledge in practice without our heads exploding – we have mental shortcuts and social cues that signal when something is _“out there”_ in public view[^12]. For instance, if you and others witness the same event in each other’s presence (say, a speaker making a public announcement), it becomes immediately evident that _“everyone has seen this”_. In effect, **public observability can generate common knowledge in one stroke**. As Pinker explains, we experience this as the feeling that a fact is now _public_ or _conspicuous_, like _“the elephant in the room”_ which all can see [^13]. ## **Why does this matter for coordination?** The reason common knowledge is essential to coordination arises from the fact that many coordination problems require not just that people _individually_ know some piece of information, but that they know _others_ know it as well. **Common knowledge is essentially the glue that keeps everyone on the same page**. If I only privately know something but am unsure whether you do, I may act hesitantly or at cross-purposes. But if it’s common knowledge, I can confidently coordinate my behaviour with yours. As Pinker puts it, _“common knowledge is necessary for coordination: for two or more people being on the same page”. In game theory terms, many coordination games have multiple possible equilibria (multiple ways to cooperate), and players need shared expectations to converge on one solution. Common knowledge provides that shared set of expectations . Indeed, Nobel-winning economist **Robert Aumann** – a pioneer of game theory – describes common knowledge as _“one of the most important and basic concepts in game theory”_ because of its role in aligning interactive decisions [^14]. ### **Dagen H** To make this concrete, consider a classic example: **choosing which side of the road to drive on**. It doesn’t inherently matter whether everyone drives on the right side or the left side – _any_ side will do, as long as it’s the same for all. The danger arises if different drivers have different assumptions. If I think maybe we’re supposed to drive on the right, but I’m not sure you think so, I’ll be extremely cautious – the uncertainty itself is paralyzing . Only when there is _common knowledge_ (e.g., a well-publicized rule) that “everybody drives on the right side” can we all drive quickly and safely without fear of head-on collisions. In fact, when Sweden switched from left-side driving to right-side in 1967, the government took great pains to create a moment of common knowledge. The change was enacted in one big synchronized move (“Dagen H”), after extensive public announcements and even a televised countdown, so that _everyone knew_ when and how the switch would occur[^15]. By making the new rule _public knowledge_ (and ensuring each person knew that everyone else had heard it too), Sweden avoided chaos on the roads during the transition. This illustrates a key point: **a well-timed public signal can establish common knowledge and thereby solve a coordination problem**. ### **Focal Points** Another famous illustration comes from the work of economist **Thomas Schelling** on focal points [^16]. Schelling asked: if two strangers in a big city must meet without communicating, where and when will they choose? He theorized that they might each pick a salient landmark or time – a _focal point_ – that they both _expect_ the other might independently choose. For example, in New York City, one might guess “noon at Grand Central Terminal’s clock” because it stands out in both people’s minds as an obvious meeting spot . What’s happening here is an _attempt to simulate common knowledge_: each person tries to choose a point that they think the other will also think of, creating a **mutually recognized solution**. It’s not true common knowledge (since they haven’t actually communicated), but the conspicuousness of the landmark gives it a kind of pseudo-common knowledge quality – each expects the other is likely thinking of it too . Schelling’s insight was that people often coordinate by converging on cultural or contextual cues that _“pop out”_ as natural points of agreement. These focal signals work **because** they are prominent or logical enough that _everyone can imagine everyone else noticing them_, approximating common knowledge of a sort. ### **The Two Generals Problem** Game theorists formalize this idea by assuming common knowledge of the “rules of the game” in most models. As economist Steven Levitt wryly noted, virtually every game-theoretic analysis begins by stipulating that players have common knowledge of the game’s structure, because without that assumption the math becomes intractable [^17]. In reality, such perfect mutual understanding might be rare – but the assumption underscores how **vital shared knowledge is to predictability and coordination**. A classic thought experiment highlighting this is the _“Two Generals Problem.”_[^18] Two army generals on separate hills must attack a common enemy at the same time to win. They can only communicate via messenger, who might get intercepted. General A sends a message “Attack at dawn” to General B. B receives it and sends back “Message received, I will attack at dawn” – but that messenger also might be captured. Even if A gets the acknowledgment, A cannot be sure B got _A’s_ confirmation of the acknowledgment, and so on. **No finite chain of messages can establish true common knowledge** that both will attack if either harbours doubt about the other’s knowledge; they dare not attack (failure to coordinate could be disastrous). Thus, the generals remain stuck – illustrating that _without common knowledge, coordination can break down_ even when both sides fully **intend** to cooperate. In computer science and logic, it’s proven that achieving common knowledge via imperfect communication is often impossible in principle (the two generals’ quandary is formally unsolvable). The practical lesson is that **assurance matters**: each actor must not only know the plan but know that others know it, are committed to it, and know that as well, before they will confidently act. ### **Common Knowledge Generators: Public Signals and Social Rituals** Humans have evolved sophisticated ways to generate common knowledge and thus overcome these dilemmas. We use **public signals and social rituals**: eye contact, handshakes, applause, public declarations, ceremonies, and so forth are not just for show – they publicly _ratify_ shared understanding[^19]. For instance, direct **eye contact** is a powerful cue because when you lock eyes with someone, you both know you’re mutually aware of each other – it’s _“the ultimate common knowledge generator,”_ as Pinker quips. Similarly, consider a **wedding ceremony**: the couple publicly says “I do” in front of witnesses. This transforms a private commitment into common knowledge – everyone present (including the couple themselves) knows that this marriage is recognized by all. The public nature of the act means the relationship status is no longer ambiguous to anyone in the community. Pinker points out that societies rely on countless such **common knowledge generators**: inaugurations to signal who is legitimately in power, press releases to announce new policies, even Super Bowl commercials to launch products in a way that “all eyes” see them. In fact, as political scientist Michael Chwe demonstrated, advertisers deliberately premier certain technologies or products during widely-watched events not just to reach many individuals, but to ensure _each viewer knows that many others have seen the same ad_, which is critical when a product’s value grows with broader adoption. For example, a new electronic payment system or social network is only useful if lots of people use it – by advertising it during the Super Bowl, companies leverage the event’s common knowledge effect: _“those eyeballs know that there are other eyeballs”_ watching at the same time. In short, **public, shared information creates a basis for aligned expectations and trust**, whether in commerce, politics, or everyday life. **Common knowledge is the foundation of coordination**. When something becomes common knowledge, people can synchronize their behaviour confidently, knowing others are doing the same. Without it, even well-intentioned groups can fall into doubt and disarray. As Pinker writes, common knowledge _“has a momentous impact on our social, political, and economic lives”_[^20], explaining phenomena from why paper money has value (we all believe everyone else accepts it) to how revolutions ignite when a populace suddenly realizes everyone shares the same grievances. In the context of climate adaptation and resilience, we can already guess its importance: stakeholders need a _shared understanding_ of climate risks, responses, and each other’s commitments in order to act in concert. Which brings us to the key question we're trying to answer: given the distributed nature of the work and the overlapping sectors involved, can **communities of practice**, including both formal and informal networks of experts and practitioners, cultivate common knowledge to facilitate their coordination and impact? # **Communities of Practice in Climate Adaptation and Resilience** As the need for **collective action** on climate change has grown, so too has interest in “Communities of Practice” (CoPs) as vehicles for collaboration and learning [^21]. The term _community of practice_ was popularized by social learning theorists (Lave and Wenger in the early 1990s) to describe a group of people who _share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly_. In simpler terms, CoPs are **peer networks** centred on a domain of knowledge or practice, where members exchange experiences, solve problems together, and build a shared repertoire of resources and approaches. Wenger and colleagues define a CoP as _“a learning partnership among people who find it useful to learn from and with each other about a particular domain”_[^22]. Crucially, a CoP is not just a one-off workshop or an email list – it’s an ongoing community with relationships and a **shared identity** formed around the practice. Members contribute their own expertise and, in turn, learn from others, developing **practical tools, standards, and insights** that advance their field. In the realm of climate adaptation and resilience, CoPs have gained traction as a means to **bridge the gap between science, policy, and on-the-ground action**[^23]. Climate challenges are multifaceted and context-specific, yet there is a huge opportunity for cross-pollination of ideas – for instance, a successful drought adaptation strategy in one region might inspire solutions for water stress in another, if the knowledge can be transferred. CoPs create spaces where such transfer can happen efficiently, by connecting practitioners who would otherwise operate in isolation. According to recent research, well-designed CoPs can accelerate social learning leading to _“innovation, elaboration, and discovery”_[^24]. In other words, when practitioners engage in peer-to-peer knowledge exchange (rather than top-down instruction), they often generate creative solutions and refine ideas collaboratively in ways that spur breakthroughs. In the climate context, studies have found that CoPs are an **effective means of helping diverse groups adapt to climate threats** – enabling farmers, city planners, engineers, and community groups to learn from each other’s experiments and adapt strategies to local needs. One review noted that CoPs have been successfully used to improve resilience outcomes and called for _deliberate creation_ of more CoPs to link scientists, officials, businesses, and other stakeholders, thereby leading to _“more productive climate mitigation and resilience efforts”_ [^25]. ### **Who participates in these climate CoPs?** Often, CoPs are a mix of policymakers and practitioners across levels. For example, municipalities have formed regional adaptation networks to share lessons on dealing with floods and heatwaves. One such network in the Gothenburg region of Sweden brought together climate adaptation officers from 13 municipalities. Meeting quarterly, _“the purpose of the network is to allow members to share their experiences and to learn from one another, thereby creating a common knowledge base and consensus”_[^26]. Participants come from different backgrounds (urban planning, emergency management, environmental protection), contributing various skills. By discussing their ongoing projects and challenges in a forum, they gained **new perspectives and identified opportunities to cooperate** (for instance, joint projects between neighbouring towns) and to avoid inadvertent conflicts of interest. The network also allowed them to stay updated on each other’s plans, which meant they could align efforts (creating synergies such as pooling resources for a regional flood study) and ensure one community’s solution didn’t become another’s problem (e.g. preventing a floodwall in one town from worsening flooding downstream). Communities of practice exist for many sub-domains of climate action. Consider a couple of examples: #### **Energy Sector CoPs** The transition to resilient, low-carbon energy systems involves myriad actors – utility companies, grid operators, engineers, regulators, and project developers. An _Energy Community of Practice_ can unite these professionals around shared goals like integrating renewable energy or enhancing grid resilience. For instance, under the Low Emission Development Strategies Global Partnership, an Asia-Pacific _Grid Renewable Energy Community of Practice_ was launched to help countries accelerate renewable integration into their power grids. This CoP provides training, technical assistance, and peer learning opportunities on topics such as grid stability, policy frameworks, and new technologies. By engaging government officials, system operators, and experts from multiple nations, the group creates a **shared knowledge platform** – each participant learns how others are tackling grid challenges, and all members come to _share an understanding_ of the key “building blocks” for renewable energy development. Such common grounding can help harmonize approaches across regions, for example by spreading standards for grid codes or best practices in managing intermittent solar/wind inputs. Likewise, agencies like the Asian Development Bank have internal Energy CoPs focused on knowledge management and dissemination of innovations (e.g. clean energy financing models) among practitioners [^27]. The **outcome** is that isolated successes in one project or country don’t remain isolated – they become part of a **collective repertoire** that others know about and can replicate or adapt, reducing duplication of effort and speeding up the overall transition. #### **Nature-Based Solutions CoPs** Many communities are pursuing nature-based solutions (NbS) – such as wetland restoration, urban forests, or green infrastructure – to build resilience against climate impacts while providing co-benefits for ecosystems. Here too, CoPs are proving valuable. In Canada, for example, the _Nature and Climate Community of Practice (NCCP)_ convenes organizations working on NbS for climate adaptation and biodiversity [^28]. Members include NGOs, government agencies, Indigenous groups, and researchers, all sharing experiences on implementing NbS. The NCCP explicitly encourages members to _“gain and share knowledge and insights from and with other members”_ and to _“work together toward shared goals”_ [^29]. By contributing data on their NbS projects and discussing what’s worked or not, the participants collectively improve the evidence base for NbS and build a **common understanding of best practices** in this emerging field. Similarly, at the international level, initiatives like the Nature-Based Solutions Community under the UN’s Nature for Climate Adaptation Initiative create forums for collaborative dialogue on NbS, focusing on pressing implementation issues and policy integration . Research suggests that such CoPs can play a pivotal role in _mainstreaming_ NbS – essentially delivering a paradigm shift by disseminating knowledge widely and creating consensus among practitioners and decision-makers on the value of NbS [^30]. When city officials, engineers, and community activists all share success stories and evidence for (say) how restoring mangroves reduced storm surge damage, this knowledge can reach critical mass. It becomes commonly accepted (“everyone in the field knows mangroves work as coastal buffers”), making it far likelier that new projects and policies will incorporate those nature-based approaches. ### **And what about "Common Knowledge"**? From these examples, we see that communities of practice serve as **knowledge hubs** that connect people, break down silos, and encourage harmonized action. But **what ensures that the knowledge circulating in a CoP actually translates into coordinated action?** This is where the concept of common knowledge returns to the forefront. It’s one thing for information or lessons to be available; it’s another for that knowledge to become a mutually acknowledged basis for decisions. In the next section, we delve into how _common knowledge within communities of practice_ can lead to tighter coordination – and how CoPs can be intentionally designed to foster common knowledge among members. # **How Common Knowledge Enhances Coordination in Communities of Practice** In a community of practice, participants are continually sharing insights, data, and experiences. Over time, this creates a **shared knowledge base** (sometimes even an explicit knowledge repository or database). However, the mere presence of shared information does not automatically guarantee coordination – what’s crucial is that the members achieve _common knowledge_ of certain key understandings, norms, or intentions. In other words, all the relevant actors need to not only receive the knowledge but also recognize that **others have also received and internalized the same knowledge**. When that state is reached, the community can truly act in a concerted, synchronized way. Let’s break down the specific ways in which **common knowledge leads to better coordination** in the context of climate adaptation communities: ### **Aligning Goals and Strategies** Common knowledge allows a group to form a _collective vision or game plan_. In a CoP, if everyone **openly** discusses and agrees on what the biggest climate risks are and which strategies are effective, it creates common knowledge of the **priorities and approaches**. For example, consider an energy resilience CoP where members discuss that improving transmission line flexibility and backup generation are crucial for withstanding extreme weather. If this becomes common knowledge (everyone knows that everyone recognizes these as priorities), then each utility or agency can align its investments accordingly without fear of acting alone. They can develop complementary projects (one focusing on grid hardening, another on microgrids) confident that others are addressing the other pieces, because it’s been collectively acknowledged. _Everyone knows we’re all on board with strategy X_ – this assurance prevents fragmentation. By contrast, if each organization was unsure whether others appreciated the importance of, say, backup power, they might under-invest or wait to see who moves first. Common knowledge thus beats a waiting game, leading to proactive, **mutually reinforcing actions**. In the Swedish municipalities network, once it became clear in group meetings that _all_ municipalities agreed on certain needs (e.g. updating flood maps or incorporating climate risks into zoning laws), that knowledge enabled a more unified approach – some towns pooled resources for a joint study, others synchronized their land-use plans’ climate sections, etc., because each knew the others were doing their part [^31]. ### **Building Trust and Mutual Expectations** Trust is fundamental to coordination. Common knowledge helps build trust by making people’s commitments and observations _publicly visible_. In a community of practice, when individuals share their plans or results in front of the whole group, it creates a kind of **commitment device** – now _everybody knows_ what that individual (or organization) is aiming to do. This mutual transparency reduces suspicion and uncertainty. Game theory tells us that many cooperation failures happen due to a lack of trust or fear of free-riding. But if a network of cities openly exchanges their adaptation plans, each city can trust that others are also working toward resilience (because they _see_ it and know others see it too). For example, a coastal town might be hesitant to invest in expensive flood defences if neighbouring towns upstream don’t invest (as their inaction could nullify the effort). A CoP meeting where each town’s mayor publicly announces their planned investments turns these intentions into common knowledge. Now the coastal town knows its neighbours are committed – a basis for trust and perhaps even cost-sharing agreements. Psychologically, **humans have a “sixth sense” for common knowledge**, as Pinker notes, and we tend to act more cooperatively when we know our knowledge is shared and our actions are observed by peers [^32]. This is why even simple actions like _making pledges in public_ or _eye contact handshakes on agreements_ help enforce coordination – they remove ambiguity about who knows what is expected. Within a CoP, the regular face-to-face (or Zoom) interactions and sharing of experiences create a culture of **accountability and support**: each practitioner knows that others are aware of the challenges they face and the efforts they’re undertaking. That common awareness means members are more likely to follow through (nobody wants to let down a team that knows exactly what you promised) and more likely to help each other (because they understand each other’s contexts and know that everyone else knows it too, which normalizes asking for help). The result is a higher level of trust and willingness to collaborate, as the group moves from a set of individual actors to a _cohesive unit with a shared understanding_. ### **Establishing Norms and Standards** Communities of practice often give rise to the emergence of best practices or standards within a field. When a best practice becomes widely recognized within the community, it effectively becomes **common knowledge** that “this is the proper way to do X.” This greatly simplifies coordination because everyone can coordinate on that standard without needing explicit negotiation each time. For instance, if an international CoP of climate-resilient infrastructure engineers agrees (through discussions and evidence sharing) that using a certain climate data model is the most reliable way to forecast flood risk, and this knowledge is disseminated such that all members know that “everyone here considers Model Y as the benchmark,” then multiple agencies can coordinate their planning using Model Y. They won’t have conflicting risk assessments, and they can share data more easily because they’re using the same methods. The **common knowledge of a standard** acts like Schelling’s focal point in practice – it’s the obvious choice because it’s known to be commonly accepted. We see this in communities like the _100 Resilient Cities_ network, which spreads certain frameworks for resilience planning (e.g. using similar metrics or assessment tools) to all member cities. Once it was common knowledge among those practitioners that “we all use Framework Z for our resilience strategy,” cities could align their efforts and even compare results meaningfully. Similarly, technical CoPs in energy may set informal standards (like how to calculate the benefits of energy storage for reliability), and once these are common knowledge in the group, joint projects and funding proposals become easier to coordinate because everyone is following the same playbook. Essentially, **common knowledge turns arbitrary choices into stable conventions**  – much as everyone driving on the right is a stable convention once it’s common knowledge, a community-wide standard is stable and self-reinforcing once everyone knows everyone is using it. ### **Avoiding Duplication and Conflict** One of the practical benefits observed in climate adaptation networks is that sharing information on who is doing what helps avoid redundant work and prevents inadvertent conflicts . This benefit is magnified when the information becomes common knowledge. If each member of a CoP knows that “organization A is focusing on task X and organization B on task Y” – and crucially, knows that _everyone else_ also knows this – then they can confidently focus on complementary tasks without worrying that something vital will fall through the cracks or be unnecessarily repeated. For example, if a group of regional municipalities, through their CoP discussion, come to a consensus that _City A will develop new flood hazard maps_ and _City B will draft a model flood bylaw_, that assignment of roles can be very efficient – **provided it’s common knowledge**. City B drafts the bylaw with the understanding (mutually acknowledged) that City A’s maps will inform it when ready. City A knows City B is awaiting its output, so it prioritizes accordingly. Neither city duplicates the other’s work, nor do they leave a gap, because the plan is clear to all. The Swedish adaptation network explicitly noted that by staying _“updated about other parts of the region,”_ members could _“identify areas where they can cooperate, create synergies, and avoid conflicts of interest”_ . In other words, a shared knowledge base (common knowledge of who’s doing what) meant towns could coordinate like pieces of a puzzle, fitting their efforts together rather than overlapping or colliding. This principle is equally relevant to global efforts: think of climate research – if two research teams are unaware of each other, they might waste resources on the same study, but if, through a CoP (or open science platform) it becomes common knowledge that one team is covering that, the other can pivot to a different complementary inquiry. The **efficiency gains** from common knowledge can be significant in resource-constrained climate adaptation work, where there is no time or money to waste on redundant projects or counterproductive measures. ### **Rapid Diffusion of Innovation and Learning** In fast-moving fields like climate resilience (where new techniques and data are constantly emerging), getting everyone up to speed quickly is paramount. Communities of practice serve as _conduits_ for rapid knowledge diffusion. When one member pioneers a successful approach – say a novel nature-based solution like a new type of rain garden that dramatically reduces runoff – the CoP can socialize this knowledge widely. But the true power lies in making it **common knowledge among the whole community that this innovation works**. It’s not just that one engineer shares a case study and a few others quietly note it; instead, in a robust CoP, that success is discussed in meetings, documented in newsletters or platforms, and _openly endorsed_ by peers. Soon, everyone in the group knows about the rain garden's success and knows that everyone else knows about it, too. That second part (mutual awareness) is key to overcoming inertia. If only a handful of people knew, others might hesitate (“does anyone else think this is proven?”). Common knowledge creates a bandwagon effect for good ideas: it provides the social proof that “this is a recognized solution.” Similar to how publicized success can drive wider adoption (consider how knowledge of one city’s effective heatwave early warning system spread and became a model for many cities once it was featured in international forums – after that, no city wanted to be left behind implementing it), a CoP that widely broadcasts member successes turns them into **shared wins** that the whole community can rally around. Indeed, a **collective mindset** can emerge: members start to see innovations by any one member as _“our” knowledge. Each of us can use it._ This dramatically speeds up implementation across the board. Empirical studies on CoPs note such outcomes; for example, one study found that CoPs facilitated _faster uptake of adaptation practices_ among agricultural groups because farmers were learning from each other, and it became common knowledge which new crop varieties were drought-tolerant and profitable. In game theoretic terms, once an innovation’s effectiveness is common knowledge, the _payoffs_ of adopting it are understood by all, and it becomes a dominant strategy for everyone to adopt rather than stick to old ways. ### **Creating a Unified Voice** When everyone in a community of practice shares certain convictions or evidence (and knows that others share them), it becomes easier to present a unified front to external decision-makers like high-level policymakers or funders. Common knowledge within the group means they can coordinate advocacy and messaging. For instance, if a resilience practitioners’ CoP collectively knows that _green infrastructure_ has broad support among their peers due to its demonstrated benefits, they can jointly recommend policies or funding for green infrastructure with confidence, rather than sending mixed messages. The knowledge that “we’re all in agreement on this and we all know we agree” allows them to divvy up roles – maybe drafting a common statement or each pushing the same recommendation in their spheres – yielding greater impact. This unified voice aspect is crucial in influencing climate policy. A disparate set of voices, even if saying similar things, can be ignored or played off each other if it’s not apparent that there’s consensus. But if it becomes widely apparent (common knowledge in the sector) that, say, all the leading adaptation experts nationwide endorse a specific approach (be it nature-based solutions or updated building codes), then policymakers receive a clear, forceful signal. We saw a version of this dynamic with the Paris Climate Agreement: part of its power came from establishing common knowledge of _intent_. Each country submitted its climate action plan publicly; every government knew what the others were pledging [^33]. This transparency – while not a community of practice per se – created a baseline mutual understanding that “we’re all doing something” and enabled greater trust to move forward. Similarly, in local or sectoral contexts, CoPs can coordinate their members to collectively inform policy or funding priorities, effectively acting as an _amplifier of individual voices into a chorus_. The members know they stand on shared evidence and thus can coordinate lobbying efforts without undercutting each other. In all these ways, the infusion of **common knowledge transforms a community of practice from a loose information-sharing group into a coordinated force**. It ensures that knowledge is not just transmitted but internalized by the group as a whole, aligning perceptions and expectations. It’s worth noting that this doesn’t happen automatically – it often requires conscious facilitation and tools. CoP facilitators and members can take steps to bolster common knowledge creation: - They can hold **plenary discussions and joint reflections** so that everyone hears key points in the presence of others (as opposed to one-off side conversations). - **Documentation and open access** to group outputs (e.g. a shared online knowledge hub or public minutes) help ensure that even those not in the room can see what was discussed, and crucially, see that others can see it too. - Using **broadcast communication** (like group emails, newsletters, or public webinars) can turn a piece of info into common knowledge because it’s addressed to all. For example, circulating a summary of an adaptation success story to the whole network puts everyone on the same page about it. - **Interactive activities** like scenario planning or simulations done together can build common understanding of a problem and what each actor might do. The mutual experience of working through a scenario gives a very concrete common knowledge – e.g. all water managers in a workshop might jointly see how a drought scenario plays out, yielding a shared recognition of vulnerabilities and responses. - **Public commitments or group agreements** can be integrated into CoP processes: at the end of a workshop, participants might each state what they will do differently or contribute. Hearing these statements creates common knowledge of commitments, increasing the likelihood of follow-through and coordination thereafter. - Modern **technology platforms** (like knowledge commons or even AI-driven forums such as CanAdapt’s platform  ) can assist by capturing and disseminating knowledge widely and matching people so that important knowledge is widely acknowledged. CanAdapt, for example, envisions using an AI-curated news service to keep all users informed of the latest research and case studies   – essentially trying to ensure that whenever critical new knowledge arises in one part of the network, it becomes _globally visible_ across the community. By breaking down information silos and customizing connections, such tools aim to _“turn isolated efforts into a coordinated movement”_, where _the whole community is smarter and more capable than any individual alone_ . It’s also important to recognize challenges: **common knowledge has to be accurate and inclusive**. If certain voices are missing from the community, the “common knowledge” might be incomplete or biased. For instance, if only large cities are in a CoP, the common knowledge may not include issues unique to small towns. Ensuring diversity and inclusion (including Indigenous knowledge, as the NCCP example shows with its acknowledgement of Indigenous insights ) will make the common knowledge base more robust and widely legitimate. Moreover, maintaining common knowledge requires continuous communication – if a community grows too large or interactions wane, people might not be sure others got the memo. This is why active facilitation, regular convenings, and transparent communication channels are critical to keep that _“everyone knows that everyone knows”_ condition intact. In the age of information overload, there’s also a risk of noise – not every detail needs to be common knowledge, so effective CoPs often curate and highlight the most salient shared knowledge (key lessons, agreed principles, etc.) so that those truly become the focal points for coordination, rather than overwhelming members with data. In summary, **within communities of practice, common knowledge serves as the linchpin of coordinated action**. It aligns goals, builds trust, sets shared norms, avoids duplication, speeds up learning, and empowers unified action. Essentially, it elevates a community from a knowledge exchange forum to a **collective intelligent actor** that can tackle complex problems together. In climate adaptation and resilience work – which by nature demands collective effort and systemic change – this capability can make the difference between piecemeal progress and transformative impact. # **Applying Common Knowledge Principles: Energy and Nature-Based Solutions Communities** To ground these ideas, let’s revisit our two example domains – energy systems and community resilience via nature-based solutions – and see how the principles of common knowledge can be (and in some cases already are) applied to enhance coordination. ### **Energy Community of Practice (Resilient and Low-Carbon Energy Systems)** Imagine a community of practice that connects energy project managers, utility engineers, government energy planners, and funders, all working towards more resilient and sustainable energy infrastructure (from power generation to transmission and distribution). Such a CoP might tackle issues like integrating renewable energy, improving grid reliability under extreme weather, and sharing technology innovations (e.g. energy storage or smart grid controls). How would common knowledge improve coordination here? - First, by developing a _shared situational awareness_ of climate risks to energy systems. If through workshops and data sharing it becomes common knowledge among all major utilities that, say, **climate change is likely to increase peak electricity demand by X% and cause more frequent substation flooding**, then each utility knows that others are also aware and presumably acting on it. This common risk understanding can prevent a tragedy of the commons where everyone waits for others to act. Instead, each actor, knowing the others know it too, can confidently invest in resilience upgrades (like cooling systems or flood protection) trusting that this is part of a broader concerted effort, not a solitary overreaction. Regulators in the CoP, for instance, having the same common knowledge of risk, are more likely to endorse these investments across the board rather than question one utility’s proactive spending. The result is a **coordinated upgrading** of infrastructure standards influenced by the common baseline knowledge of future conditions. - Second, common knowledge in an energy CoP can streamline **technical standardization and interoperability**. Renewable energy integration requires coordination (one grid’s actions affect neighbours). Through the CoP, all grid operators might, for example, come to a mutual agreement that adopting a specific communications protocol for smart grid devices is critical for regional interoperability. Once everyone knows that everyone is on board with Protocol Z (and knows that they know, etc.), each operator can implement it without fear – they won’t be an outlier, and equipment manufacturers also get the signal to produce devices compatible with Z. This was seen in some regional electricity collaborations where a common knowledge that “we will all use this data-sharing platform for grid emergencies” greatly improved cross-utility cooperation during blackouts. Without that, each might hesitate to share data, unsure if others would reciprocate. Common knowledge sets the expectation and norm. - Third, in financing and planning, energy projects often depend on **network effects** (similar to the product example with Super Bowl ads). For instance, an energy storage facility is more valuable if the market (regulators, investors) know that many such projects are coming online (creating economies of scale and stable policy support). A CoP can help by publicly showcasing commitments: if five city transit agencies, through a CoP, each announce they plan to procure electric buses, and this is made common knowledge among them and to suppliers, it can prompt a coordinated response (joint procurement, or suppliers ramping up production). In essence, **common knowledge of collective intent** lowers uncertainty and can catalyze joint initiatives. The CoP might facilitate an announcement, “Our network of cities collectively intends to install 500 MW of battery storage by 2030,” which all members are aware of and endorse. This not only helps them coordinate with each other (sharing best practices to reach that goal) but also sends a credible signal to external partners (like a signal to manufacturers or to higher government that there is a united demand, possibly attracting funding or favourable policy). As seen from these scenarios, the energy CoP becomes most effective when it’s not just sharing technical papers quietly, but when it **creates an environment where knowledge and commitments are open and commonly understood**. Then all players in the energy system can move in the same direction, amplifying resilience and decarbonization efforts. ### **Communities of Practice for Resilient Communities and Nature-Based Solutions (NbS)** Now consider a network of community leaders, urban planners, ecologists, and NGOs all working to implement nature-based solutions for resilience – things like restoring wetlands to mitigate floods, planting urban trees to reduce heat, or conserving watersheds to secure water supply. Coordination here might involve multiple communities in a region and various sectors (water management, parks, emergency management). How does common knowledge help? - A primary need is a **shared evidence base** for nature-based solutions. NbS often face skepticism or uncertainty; decision-makers might not adopt them unless they know others find them credible. Through a CoP, practitioners exchange results – e.g. one town shares that its restored mangroves reduced storm surge by 30%. If this information remains isolated, other towns might still stick to seawalls. But if the CoP widely publicizes this success and it becomes _common knowledge among regional planners that “Mangroves work for flood protection”_, suddenly many local governments can feel confident making similar investments . They not only heard the data, but they also know that _their peers have heard it too_. So at the next regional planning meeting, nobody is in the dark – they can collectively agree to prioritize mangrove restoration in multiple municipalities. This removes the **perceived risk of being the first mover**; it’s easier to justify an NbS when “everyone knows it’s effective” rather than just you quietly thinking so. The CoP serves to _validate_ innovative solutions by essentially shouting them from the rooftops within the professional community, achieving that mutual recognition. - Another coordination aspect is **regional coherence in nature-based projects**. Ecosystems cross political boundaries. Suppose upstream communities and downstream communities need to coordinate on a river restoration for flood control. A CoP spanning these communities can facilitate a common knowledge of each other’s plans and needs. Upstream might say “we plan to restore 50 hectares of floodplain”, downstream might say “we will expand our river parks to absorb overflow.” Through joint workshops, each side learns the other’s contributions and sees that _everyone appreciates the interdependence_. This knowledge – each knowing the other is investing – fosters trust that the combined project will work (akin to the generals problem but solved by open communication). They may synchronize timelines and design parameters because it’s commonly understood how the pieces fit. If instead, upstream wasn’t sure whether downstream would maintain their wetlands, they might not bother, and vice versa. The CoP makes the tacit coordination _explicit and commonly known_, ensuring that nature-based solutions are implemented as part of a connected network rather than isolated pockets. Indeed, networks like the **Community of Practice on coastal resilience** share information on which stretches of coast each group is restoring, allowing for a continuous belt of protection rather than patchwork – everyone knows where the gaps are and can collaborate to fill them. - Common knowledge also helps scale **community engagement and social buy-in** for NbS. Often, one community’s success can influence others if it’s visible. The CoP might host site visits or webinars where a town that built a new green corridor shows its benefits. If multiple communities attend and witness this (even if virtually), it becomes common knowledge in the group that “Town X’s residents love their green corridor and it also reduced flood damage.” Now each attendee not only learned this, but knows that many of their fellow practitioners learned it too. This can spark a domino effect: a funding agency in the group sees that a lot of communities are now interested (because they all saw each other’s enthusiasm in the webinar Q&A, for instance) and thus might launch a program to support replication. In essence, the CoP made the interest and success broadly visible. This dynamic was observed in programs like 100 Resilient Cities, where once a handful of cities openly championed a novel approach (like a _“sponge city”_ concept for urban flooding), it quickly became part of the shared toolkit that dozens of other cities felt comfortable adopting – largely because it was talked about in common forums until it became a “well-known best practice” (common knowledge) rather than an obscure trial. In both domains – and generally in communities of practice focused on climate adaptation – we see that the difference between fragmented, halting progress and coordinated, accelerated progress often boils down to **whether knowledge remains siloed or becomes common knowledge**. When every practitioner _individually_ knows something but hasn’t communicated, coordination games persist: _“Should I act on this if I’m not sure others will?”_. When that knowledge is raised to the level of _mutual knowledge_, the roadblocks diminish: _“We all know the situation/solution, so let’s each do our part.”_ It’s worth reinforcing that **common knowledge is a force multiplier** for the social capital that communities of practice build. CoPs create relationships and trust over time; when a critical mass of shared understanding is reached, that trust can be cashed in for bold collective actions. For example, a CoP of city officials might collectively decide to **coordinate funding proposals** – rather than compete – once they realize everyone benefits from a regional approach (each knows that all know a joint proposal will attract more funding than isolated ones). Indeed, examples have occurred where cities that met through a resilience CoP jointly applied for a grant to implement a series of complementary projects, citing their established partnership – something unlikely without the common knowledge cultivated in the network that “together we make a stronger case.” Funders themselves are encouraging such approaches; some philanthropy and government programs favor multi-stakeholder proposals, effectively nudging communities to achieve common knowledge of each other’s plans and form coalitions. Ultimately, applying common knowledge principles in CoPs is about **intentional communication and transparency**. Leaders of communities of practice should ask: _Does everyone in this network know the key takeaways, and do they know that others know them too?_ If not, what medium or forum can ensure that? It might mean translating technical jargon into accessible knowledge so all members truly grasp it (common knowledge can fail if only a subset understands the info). It might involve repeated messaging and visible endorsement (so that it’s not just known, but known to be widely accepted). The payoff is high: when a community truly shares knowledge in the full sense, it can act almost like a single organism with many arms – each part moving in coordination toward a common goal. And that is exactly what’s needed to confront a crisis as all-encompassing as climate change. # **Recommendations and Conclusion** In light of the above, we offer the following recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and funders looking to leverage common knowledge to improve coordination in climate adaptation and resilience efforts: ### **1. Invest in and Empower Communities of Practice** Support the formation and sustenance of CoPs across relevant domains (energy, water, agriculture, disaster risk reduction, etc.). This includes providing resources for regular convenings (in-person or virtual), knowledge management platforms, and facilitation. _Rationale:_ CoPs create the channels through which knowledge can flow and become shared. As research shows, they are effective at fostering social learning and speeding up adaptation . For funders, this might mean funding a secretariat or coordinator role for a CoP, or requiring that projects include a plan for peer learning exchange. For policymakers, it could mean officially recognizing or partnering with practitioner networks (e.g. a national climate center coordinating municipal CoPs). **Well-facilitated CoPs will naturally cultivate common knowledge** by virtue of repeated interactions and open sharing, but they need institutional backing to thrive. ### **2. Make Key Information Public and “Mutual”** Ensure that critical climate data, risk assessments, best practices, and project plans are not only available but shared in forums where all stakeholders see that others see them. This could involve open-access databases, public dashboards of who is doing what on adaptation, or multi-party workshops where findings are presented. _Rationale:_ As we’ve emphasized, **publicity is powerful** – a public announcement or visible sharing can convert knowledge into common knowledge . For example, rather than each city quietly conducting its climate risk analysis, a national program could host an open webinar series where each city presents its findings to all. This way, every city’s officials know the overall landscape of risks and actions, not just their own. Everyone leaves knowing that “we all heard these results.” Such transparency also builds trust and accountability. Policymakers can mandate or incentivize this kind of open knowledge exchange as part of adaptation planning (e.g. require that plans are presented in regional forums, not just submitted on paper). _The goal is to turn important knowledge into common knowledge._ ### **3. Use Technology to Break Silos and Reinforce Shared Understanding** Leverage collaborative platforms, knowledge bases, and even AI tools (like CanAdapt’s approach ) to capture and disseminate lessons learned across networks. For instance, create an online community portal where members post case studies and others can comment or ask questions in a visible way. Use newsletters or digests that highlight “what the community knows this month.” _Rationale:_ Digital tools can ensure that even as communities scale, the information doesn’t become balkanized. AI can help highlight patterns or connect people who should talk, but at minimum, a well-designed online space can memorialize the knowledge shared in meetings and allow newcomers to get up to speed on what is common knowledge in the group. It also makes the knowledge searchable and persistent. Funders might support the development of such platforms (like a climate adaptation wiki or a best-practice library) – indeed, CanAdapt itself is building a **knowledge wiki and forum** to serve as a common knowledge repository for practitioners . _When everyone has a “single source of truth” to reference, coordination is smoother._ ### **4. Encourage Public Commitments and Joint Strategies** Within communities of practice, encourage members to articulate their commitments, plans, or needs in front of the group. Similarly, facilitate the development of **joint statements or strategies** that everyone in the group endorses and is aware of. _Rationale:_ A commitment made privately has less force than one made in front of peers (common knowledge of commitments increases follow-through). If a network of cities all commit publicly to certain resilience targets, each city knows the others are serious – reducing political risk of acting. Joint strategies (like a regional adaptation roadmap developed by the CoP) serve as common reference points so that each actor’s efforts are aligned by design . Policymakers can catalyze this by convening summits or coalitions where commitments are announced (for example, a pledge campaign where communities announce their adaptation goals and see others’ goals). Philanthropies can require coalition-building: e.g. only fund proposals that demonstrate multiple stakeholders have co-developed them (forcing the proposal’s content to become common knowledge among those stakeholders). The underlying principle is to **move tacit alignment into explicit, commonly known alignment**. ### **5. Foster a Culture of Trust and Open Communication** Soft aspects matter too. CoPs should cultivate an environment where sharing information (including failures and lessons learned) is rewarded and where members feel responsible for collective success. This might involve setting ground rules about confidentiality vs. shareability, using facilitation techniques that draw out quieter voices, and highlighting examples of collaboration. _Rationale:_ People are sometimes reluctant to share information, which inhibits common knowledge. By lowering those barriers – for instance, through “safe space” discussions or neutral facilitators – more knowledge enters the common pool. Trust built over time means members won’t hold back critical information (like a looming risk or a new opportunity). **High trust + open communication = the conditions for common knowledge to flourish**. As Pinker noted in various contexts, people often avoid common knowledge when it’s socially risky (e.g. acknowledging an “elephant in the room”) ; a trustful community can overcome that and put the tough issues on the table where all can address them. Funders and leaders can encourage this by not punishing honest sharing of challenges, and by celebrating collective achievements rather than individual credit – sending the signal that _we rise together by sharing what we know_. ### **6. Include Diverse Stakeholders to Enrich the Common Knowledge Base:** Make sure the community of practice includes the breadth of perspectives necessary – local and indigenous knowledge holders, frontline communities, various sector experts – so that what becomes common knowledge is well-rounded and legitimate. _Rationale:_ For example, in designing nature-based solutions, indigenous communities might hold crucial knowledge about local ecosystems. If they are part of the CoP, their knowledge can become part of the common knowledge that everyone uses. If not, the group might have “common” knowledge that is actually incomplete or flawed. Likewise, including both policymakers and practitioners means the common knowledge encompasses both on-the-ground reality and policy constraints, which leads to better-aligned actions. This diversity also aids in **common knowledge for consensus** – when a wide array of stakeholders all know that _everyone_ (from community leaders to scientists) agrees on a fact or a strategy, it carries more weight and reduces later pushback. It also avoids false consensus where a group thinks something is commonly understood, but they simply lacked a dissenting voice in the room. So, broaden the circle of common knowledge as needed. By implementing these recommendations, stakeholders can strengthen the “knowledge infrastructure” that underpins coordinated climate action. **The big picture conclusion** is that tackling climate adaptation is not just a technical challenge, but a profoundly social one. It requires aligning many individuals and organizations in purpose and practice. _Common knowledge is the hidden but critical ingredient in achieving that alignment._ As we have shown, when communities generate common knowledge – when _“everyone knows that everyone knows”_ key facts, risks, and intentions – they unlock higher levels of coordination, akin to an orchestra playing in sync rather than soloists clashing . This can mean the difference between a patchwork of resilience measures and a resilient society that is more than the sum of its parts. In the face of the climate crisis, we often hear calls for collective action and shared purpose. Common knowledge is what turns those from slogans into reality: it is how a shared purpose becomes _palpable and actionable_, because each person sees it reflected in the eyes and words of others. As Steven Pinker’s work highlights, **our species has evolved remarkable ways to get into each other’s heads and align our endeavours** – from language and storytelling to rituals and joint planning. We must leverage these innate capacities in new ways to address climate change. Communities of practice, supported by modern communication tools and guided by principles of transparency and inclusion, are a promising avenue to do so. By creating common knowledge about both the problems and the solutions, they enable disparate actors to act as one, coordinating spontaneously as drivers who all know the rules of the road. CanAdapt’s vision – _“built on the belief that collective intelligence is the key to tackling the polycrisis”_ – resonates strongly here. Collective intelligence is in many respects an emergent property of effective common knowledge sharing. When a community connects, shares, and _truly knows things together_, it gains an intelligence and problem-solving ability greater than any member alone . In climate adaptation, this could manifest as communities rapidly transferring solutions amongst themselves, or anticipating each other’s needs and helping without being asked, or uniting to call for the systemic changes they all recognize are needed. The challenges of climate change are immense and can feel overwhelming to face in isolation. But as this paper has argued, **when we cultivate common knowledge, we transform isolation into unity**. A problem shared is a problem half solved, the saying goes – and when knowledge is fully shared (in the common knowledge sense), a problem can be addressed by _coordinated halves_ that move in unison. From driving on the same side of the road to driving the global response to climate change, common knowledge is the quiet force that helps us avoid crashes and find our way together. In conclusion, those working on climate adaptation and resilience – be they policymakers designing frameworks, practitioners implementing projects, or funders enabling action – should consciously harness the power of common knowledge. Support the forums and practices that let people _know together_. By doing so, we will unlock better coordination, more trust, and ultimately more effective and equitable resilience for our communities. When everyone knows that everyone knows the stakes and the path forward, humanity can coordinate at the scale needed to meet the climate challenge . The climate crisis is a shared threat; our response must be built on shared understanding. Let’s make it common knowledge. # **Sources:** 1. **ADB (2011).** _ADB Resources for Communities of Practice: Creating Value through Knowledge Networks._ (Institutional toolkit on organizing and running CoPs.) (https://www.adb.org/documents/adb-resources-communities-practice-creating-value-through-knowledge-networks) 2. **ADB (2010).** _Annual Report of the Community of Practice on Energy._ (Internal CoP assessment—illustrates formal CoP practice within a major regional development bank.) (https://www.adb.org/documents/annual-report-community-practice-energy-2010) 3. **Asia LEDS Partnership / GCAP (2018–2021).** Launch and description of the _Grid‑integrated / Grid‑scale Renewable Energy Community of Practice_ (membership, purpose, activities). (https://globalclimateactionpartnership.org/asia-leds-partnership/) 4. **Aumann, R. J. (1976).** _Agreeing to Disagree._ _The Annals of Statistics_, 4(6), 1236–1239. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176343654.  5. **CanAdapt (2024).** “A New Paradigm for Climate Adaptation: How CanAdapt is Redefining Communities of Practice in the Age of AI.” (Organizational vision and CoP approach.) (https://canadapt.news/a-new-paradigm-for-climate-adaptation/) 6. **CDKN (2018).** “Join regional ‘Communities of Practice’ on low emission development.” (Role of CoPs in LEDS GP.) (https://cdkn.org/story/leds-communities) 7. **Chwe, M. S.-Y. (2001).** _Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge._ Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Princeton Scholarship Online overview.)  https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hqf1 8. **Conversations with Tyler (2025).** “Steven Pinker on Coordination, Common Knowledge, and the Retreat of Liberal Enlightenment” (Ep. 255). (https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/steven-pinker-2/) 9. **Climate Outreach & NAP Global Network (2023).** _Public Engagement on Climate Change Adaptation._ (Guidance for NAP teams.) (https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/napgn-en-2023-public-engagement-on-climate-change-adaptation.pdf) 10. **Financial Times (Kelly, J.).** Review: _When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows…_ (Context on “instant common‑knowledge creators,” Super Bowl ads, etc.). (2025). (https://www.ft.com/content/a78b2c28-2975-46df-a24b-c2405640ea2b) 11. **Freakonomics Radio (2025).** “The Secret of Humanity? It’s Common Knowledge.” (Interview with Steven Pinker). (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-secret-of-humanity-its-common-knowledge/) 12. **Gifford J. Wong (2024)**, The road to the Paris Agreement._Science _**386**,32-32(2024).DOI:[10.1126/science.adr3544](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr3544) 13. **The Good Fight / Persuasion (2025).** “Steven Pinker on How Common Knowledge Builds and Weakens Societies.” (Episode listing.) (https://www.persuasion.community/p/steven-pinker-common-knowledge) 14. **IISD – Nature for Climate Adaptation Initiative (NCAI).** _Nature and Climate Community of Practice (NCCP):_ scope and knowledge‑sharing approach (incl. Indigenous knowledge). (https://ncai.iisd.org/community-of-practice/) 15. **Khatibi, F. S., Dedekorkut‑Howes, A., Howes, M., & Choudhury, M.-U. I. (2021).** Can public awareness, knowledge and engagement improve climate change adaptation policies? _Discover Sustainability_, 2(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621‑021‑00024‑z. 16. **Knology (2023).** _Communities of Practice and Climate Change_ (overview of how CoPs accelerate learning and practice). https://knology.org/article/communities-of-practice-and-climate-change/ 17. **Lewis, D. (1969).** _Convention: A Philosophical Study._ Oxford: Blackwell / Wiley. (Publisher page.) (https://www.wiley.com/en-ca/Convention%3A+A+Philosophical+Study-p-9780631232568) 18. **Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994).** The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games. _American Economic Review_, 84(3), 658–673. (https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v84y1994i3p658-73.html) 19. **Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1990).** Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment. _Journal of the ACM_, 37(3), 549–587. (https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0006009) 20. **Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994).** Focal points in pure coordination games: An experimental investigation. _Theory and Decision_, 36, 163–185. (https://research-portal.uea.ac.uk/en/publications/focal-points-in-pure-coordination-games-an-experimental-investiga)  21. **Pinker, S. (2025).** _When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows…: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life._ New York: Scribner (US) / London: Allen Lane (UK). (https://www.simonandschuster.ca/books/When-Everyone-Knows-That-Everyone-Knows/Steven-Pinker/9781668011577)  22. **PreventionWeb (2021).** “Networks reinforce municipalities’ work on climate adaptation” (https://www.preventionweb.net/news/networks-reinforce-municipalities-work-climate-adaptation).  23. **Resilient Cities Network / Arup (2014; updated 2024).** _City Resilience Framework (CRF):_ shared language and goals to align cross‑sector coordination. (https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/city-resilience-framework-2024-edition/) 24. **Rockefeller Foundation (2013–2019).** _100 Resilient Cities (100RC) program_—network support, Chief Resilience Officers, and peer learning/model diffusion. (https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/100-resilient-cities/) 25. **Rockefeller Foundation (2015).** _City Resilience Framework_ (https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/100RC-City-Resilience-Framework.pdf). 26. **Schelling, T. C. (1960).** _The Strategy of Conflict._ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674840317)  27. **Wikipedia**, Dagen H (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H) ### Footnotes [^1]: https://canadapt.news/a-new-paradigm-for-climate-adaptation/#:~:text=It%27s%20the%20year%202030%2C%20Tofino%2C,crises%20we%20call%20the%20polycrisis [^2]: https://knology.org/article/communities-of-practice-and-climate-change/ [^3]: https://dppa.un.org/en/addressing-impact-of-climate-change-peace-and-security#:~:text=TRAINING%20AND%20TOOLBOX,(en/fr/sp) [^4]: https://canadapt.news/a-new-paradigm-for-climate-adaptation/#:~:text=Communities%20of%20practice%2C%20where%20professionals,to%20respond%20quickly%20and%20effectively [^5]: https://canadapt.news/a-new-paradigm-for-climate-adaptation/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20an%20engineer%20working,the%20impact%20of%20collective%20knowledge [^6]: https://www.persuasion.community/p/steven-pinker-common-knowledge [^7]: https://www.persuasion.community/p/steven-pinker-common-knowledge [^8]: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-secret-of-humanity-its-common-knowledge/#:~:text=match%20at%20L233%20understanding%20common,of%20your%20main%20argument%3F [^9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZKU7TgR6IU#:~:text=TED%20www,to%20markets%20to%20international%20diplomacy [^10]: https://stevenpinker.com/publications/when-everyone-knows-everyone-knows-common-knowledge-and-mysteries-money-power-and#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20lively%20exposition%20of%20one,the%20Hebrew%20University%20of%20Jerusalem [^11]: https://stevenpinker.com/publications/when-everyone-knows-everyone-knows-common-knowledge-and-mysteries-money-power-and#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20lively%20exposition%20of%20one,the%20Hebrew%20University%20of%20Jerusalem [^12]: https://stevenpinker.com/publications/when-everyone-knows-everyone-knows-common-knowledge-and-mysteries-money-power-and#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%20lively%20exposition%20of%20one,the%20Hebrew%20University%20of%20Jerusalem [^13]: https://stevenpinker.com/publications/when-everyone-knows-everyone-knows-common-knowledge-and-mysteries-money-power-and [^14]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2958591 [^15]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H [^16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) [^17]: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-secret-of-humanity-its-common-knowledge/#:~:text=thing%2C%20if%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20assume,because%20otherwise%20it%E2%80%99s%20really%20hard [^18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem [^19]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hqf1 [^20]: https://stevenpinker.com/publications/when-everyone-knows-everyone-knows-common-knowledge-and-mysteries-money-power-and [^21]: https://knology.org/article/communities-of-practice-and-climate-change/ [^22]: https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ [^23]: https://knology.org/article/communities-of-practice-and-climate-change/ [^24]: https://knology.org/article/communities-of-practice-and-climate-change/ [^25]: https://knology.org/article/communities-of-practice-and-climate-change/ [^26]: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/networks-reinforce-municipalities-work-climate-adaptation [^27]: https://cdkn.org/story/leds-communities#:~:text=Grid%20Renewable%20Energy%20Community%20of,Practice [^28]: https://ncai.iisd.org/community-of-practice/#:~:text=A%20community%20of%20practice%20for,climate%20change%20adaptation%20and%20biodiversity [^29]: https://ncai.iisd.org/community-of-practice/#:~:text=A%20community%20of%20practice%20for,climate%20change%20adaptation%20and%20biodiversity [^30]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772411524000909#:~:text=A%20transformations%20framework%20for%20mainstreaming,63 [^31]: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/networks-reinforce-municipalities-work-climate-adaptation#:~:text=learn%20from%20one%20another%2C%20thereby,The%20network%20also%20provides%20an [^32]: https://stevenpinker.com/publications/when-everyone-knows-everyone-knows-common-knowledge-and-mysteries-money-power-and#:~:text=social%C2%A0coordination%3A%20everything%20from%20meeting%20up,eye%20contact%2C%20and%20blunt%20speech [^33]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr3544 [^34]: https://stevenpinker.com