Articles | Volume 7, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-35-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-35-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Co-RISK: a tool to co-create impactful university–industry projects for natural hazard risk mitigation
Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE1 3TU, UK
Michiel van Meeteren
Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE1 3TU, UK
Dept. Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, the Netherlands
Related authors
Shahzad Gani, Louise Arnal, Lucy Beattie, John Hillier, Sam Illingworth, Tiziana Lanza, Solmaz Mohadjer, Karoliina Pulkkinen, Heidi Roop, Iain Stewart, Kirsten von Elverfeldt, and Stephanie Zihms
Geosci. Commun., 7, 251–266, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Science communication in geosciences has societal and scientific value but often operates in “shadowlands”. This editorial highlights these issues and proposes potential solutions. Our objective is to create a transparent and responsible geoscience communication landscape, fostering scientific progress, the well-being of scientists, and societal benefits.
John Hillier, Adrian Champion, Tom Perkins, Freya Garry, and Hannah Bloomfield
Geosci. Commun., 7, 195–200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To allow for more effective use of climate science, this work proposes and evaluates an open-access R code that deploys a measure of how natural hazards (e.g. extreme wind and flooding) co-occur, is obtainable from scientific research and is usable in practice without restricted data (climate or risk) being exposed. The approach can be applied to hazards in various sectors (e.g. road, rail and telecommunications).
John K. Hillier, Chris Unsworth, Luke De Clerk, and Sergey Savel'ev
Geosci. Commun., 5, 11–15, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-11-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-11-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
It is an aspiration to infer flow conditions from bedform morphology (e.g. riverbed ripples) where sedimentary structures preserve the geological past or in inaccessible environments (e.g. Mars). This study was motivated by the idea of better designing an AI (artificial intelligence) algorithm to do this by using lessons from non-AI (i.e. human) abilities, investigated using a geoscience communication activity. A survey and an artificial neural network are used in a successful proof of concept.
John K. Hillier, Katharine E. Welsh, Mathew Stiller-Reeve, Rebecca K. Priestley, Heidi A. Roop, Tiziana Lanza, and Sam Illingworth
Geosci. Commun., 4, 493–506, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-493-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-493-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this editorial we expand upon the brief advice in the first editorial of Geoscience Communication (Illingworth et al., 2018), illustrating what constitutes robust and publishable work for this journal and elucidating its key elements. Our aim is to help geoscience communicators plan a route to publication and to illustrate how good engagement work that is already being done might be developed into publishable research.
John K. Hillier, Geoffrey R. Saville, Mike J. Smith, Alister J. Scott, Emma K. Raven, Jonathon Gascoigne, Louise J. Slater, Nevil Quinn, Andreas Tsanakas, Claire Souch, Gregor C. Leckebusch, Neil Macdonald, Alice M. Milner, Jennifer Loxton, Rebecca Wilebore, Alexandra Collins, Colin MacKechnie, Jaqui Tweddle, Sarah Moller, MacKenzie Dove, Harry Langford, and Jim Craig
Geosci. Commun., 2, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-1-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-1-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Worldwide there is intense interest in converting research excellence in universities into commercial success, but there has been scant attention devoted to exactly how individual scientists' workload and incentive structures may be a key barrier to this. Our work reveals the real challenge posed by a time-constrained university culture, better describes how work with business might fit into an academic job, and gives tips on working together in an
user guidefor scientists and (re)insurers.
Giulia Sofia, John K. Hillier, and Susan J. Conway
Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 721–725, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-721-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-721-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The interdisciplinarity of geomorphometry is its greatest strength and one of its major challenges. This special issue showcases exciting developments that are the building blocks for the next step-change in the field. In reading and compiling the contributions we hope that the scientific community will be inspired to seek out collaborations and share ideas across subject-boundaries, between technique-developers and users, enabling us as a community to gather knowledge from our digital landscape
J. K. Hillier, G. Sofia, and S. J. Conway
Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 587–598, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-587-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-587-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
How good are measurements of shapes in the landscape? This is not well constrained. We suggest that "synthetic tests" using constructed digital landscapes called synthetic DEMs are a powerful and necessary tool to establish the reliability of these data (e.g. mapped sizes). Thus, the tests have a key, complementary role in determining if conceptual and physics-driven models of processes can be reconciled with morphological observations of reality. A typology of synthetic DEMs is proposed.
Shahzad Gani, Louise Arnal, Lucy Beattie, John Hillier, Sam Illingworth, Tiziana Lanza, Solmaz Mohadjer, Karoliina Pulkkinen, Heidi Roop, Iain Stewart, Kirsten von Elverfeldt, and Stephanie Zihms
Geosci. Commun., 7, 251–266, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Science communication in geosciences has societal and scientific value but often operates in “shadowlands”. This editorial highlights these issues and proposes potential solutions. Our objective is to create a transparent and responsible geoscience communication landscape, fostering scientific progress, the well-being of scientists, and societal benefits.
John Hillier, Adrian Champion, Tom Perkins, Freya Garry, and Hannah Bloomfield
Geosci. Commun., 7, 195–200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To allow for more effective use of climate science, this work proposes and evaluates an open-access R code that deploys a measure of how natural hazards (e.g. extreme wind and flooding) co-occur, is obtainable from scientific research and is usable in practice without restricted data (climate or risk) being exposed. The approach can be applied to hazards in various sectors (e.g. road, rail and telecommunications).
John K. Hillier, Chris Unsworth, Luke De Clerk, and Sergey Savel'ev
Geosci. Commun., 5, 11–15, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-11-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-11-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
It is an aspiration to infer flow conditions from bedform morphology (e.g. riverbed ripples) where sedimentary structures preserve the geological past or in inaccessible environments (e.g. Mars). This study was motivated by the idea of better designing an AI (artificial intelligence) algorithm to do this by using lessons from non-AI (i.e. human) abilities, investigated using a geoscience communication activity. A survey and an artificial neural network are used in a successful proof of concept.
John K. Hillier, Katharine E. Welsh, Mathew Stiller-Reeve, Rebecca K. Priestley, Heidi A. Roop, Tiziana Lanza, and Sam Illingworth
Geosci. Commun., 4, 493–506, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-493-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-493-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this editorial we expand upon the brief advice in the first editorial of Geoscience Communication (Illingworth et al., 2018), illustrating what constitutes robust and publishable work for this journal and elucidating its key elements. Our aim is to help geoscience communicators plan a route to publication and to illustrate how good engagement work that is already being done might be developed into publishable research.
John K. Hillier, Geoffrey R. Saville, Mike J. Smith, Alister J. Scott, Emma K. Raven, Jonathon Gascoigne, Louise J. Slater, Nevil Quinn, Andreas Tsanakas, Claire Souch, Gregor C. Leckebusch, Neil Macdonald, Alice M. Milner, Jennifer Loxton, Rebecca Wilebore, Alexandra Collins, Colin MacKechnie, Jaqui Tweddle, Sarah Moller, MacKenzie Dove, Harry Langford, and Jim Craig
Geosci. Commun., 2, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-1-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-1-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Worldwide there is intense interest in converting research excellence in universities into commercial success, but there has been scant attention devoted to exactly how individual scientists' workload and incentive structures may be a key barrier to this. Our work reveals the real challenge posed by a time-constrained university culture, better describes how work with business might fit into an academic job, and gives tips on working together in an
user guidefor scientists and (re)insurers.
Giulia Sofia, John K. Hillier, and Susan J. Conway
Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 721–725, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-721-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-721-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The interdisciplinarity of geomorphometry is its greatest strength and one of its major challenges. This special issue showcases exciting developments that are the building blocks for the next step-change in the field. In reading and compiling the contributions we hope that the scientific community will be inspired to seek out collaborations and share ideas across subject-boundaries, between technique-developers and users, enabling us as a community to gather knowledge from our digital landscape
J. K. Hillier, G. Sofia, and S. J. Conway
Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 587–598, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-587-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-587-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
How good are measurements of shapes in the landscape? This is not well constrained. We suggest that "synthetic tests" using constructed digital landscapes called synthetic DEMs are a powerful and necessary tool to establish the reliability of these data (e.g. mapped sizes). Thus, the tests have a key, complementary role in determining if conceptual and physics-driven models of processes can be reconciled with morphological observations of reality. A typology of synthetic DEMs is proposed.
Related subject area
Subject: Geoscience engagement | Keyword: Risk communication
GC Insights: Open-access R code for translating the co-occurrence of natural hazards into impact on joint financial risk
GC Insights: Communicating long-term changes in local climate risk using a physically plausible causal chain
Quantifying and communicating uncertain climate change hazards in participatory climate change adaptation processes
Is there a climate change reporting bias? A case study of English-language news articles, 2017–2022
“Are we talking just a bit of water out of bank? Or is it Armageddon?” Front line perspectives on transitioning to probabilistic fluvial flood forecasts in England
John Hillier, Adrian Champion, Tom Perkins, Freya Garry, and Hannah Bloomfield
Geosci. Commun., 7, 195–200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To allow for more effective use of climate science, this work proposes and evaluates an open-access R code that deploys a measure of how natural hazards (e.g. extreme wind and flooding) co-occur, is obtainable from scientific research and is usable in practice without restricted data (climate or risk) being exposed. The approach can be applied to hazards in various sectors (e.g. road, rail and telecommunications).
Ed Hawkins, Nigel Arnell, Jamie Hannaford, and Rowan Sutton
Geosci. Commun., 7, 161–165, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-161-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-161-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change can often seem rather remote, especially when the discussion is about global averages which appear to have little relevance to local experiences. But those global changes are already affecting people, even if they do not fully realise it, and effective communication of this issue is critical. We use long observations and well-understood physical principles to visually highlight how global emissions influence local flood risk in one river basin in the UK.
Laura Müller and Petra Döll
Geosci. Commun., 7, 121–144, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-121-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-121-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To be able to adapt to climate change, stakeholders need to be informed about future uncertain climate change hazards. Using freely available output of global hydrological models, we quantified future local changes in water resources and their uncertainty. To communicate these in participatory processes, we propose using "percentile boxes" to support the development of flexible strategies for climate risk management worldwide, involving stakeholders and scientists.
Chloe Brimicombe
Geosci. Commun., 5, 281–287, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-281-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-281-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is increasing the risk of weather hazards (i.e. storms and heatwaves). Using open science methods, it is shown that there is a bias in weather hazard reporting in English-language news media. Storms are the weather hazard with the most articles written over the last 5 years. In comparison, wildfires are mentioned most per individual hazard occurrence with climate change. Science and media collaborations could address the bias and improve reporting.
Louise Arnal, Liz Anspoks, Susan Manson, Jessica Neumann, Tim Norton, Elisabeth Stephens, Louise Wolfenden, and Hannah Louise Cloke
Geosci. Commun., 3, 203–232, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-203-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-203-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Environment Agency (EA), responsible for flood risk management in England, is moving towards the use of probabilistic river flood forecasts. By showing the likelihood of future floods, they can allow earlier anticipation. But making decisions on probabilistic information is complex and interviews with EA decision-makers highlight the practical challenges and opportunities of this transition. We make recommendations to support a successful transition for flood early warning in England.
Cited articles
Bamzai-Dodson, A., Cravens, A. E., Wade, A., and McPherson, R. A.: Engaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: a framework and guidance, Weather Clim. Soc., 13, 1027–1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0046.1, 2021.
Bank of England: General Insurance Stress Test 2019, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/letter/2019/general-insurance-stress-test-2019-scenario-specification-guidelines-and-instructions.pdf (last access: 5 April 2022), 2019.
Bank of England: General Insurance Stress Test 2022, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/letter/2022/january/insurance-stress-test-2022-request-for-technical-input (last access: 5 April 2022), 2022.
Bassens, D. and Van Meeteren, M.: World cities under conditions of financialized globalization Towards an augmented world city hypothesis, Prog. Human Geogr., 39, 752–775, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514558441, 2015.
Bassens, D., Gutierrez, L., Hendrikse, R. P., Lambert, D., and Waiengnier, M.: Unpacking the advanced producer services complex in world cities: Charting professional networks, localisation economies and markets, Urban Studies, 58, 1286–1302, 2021.
Beckert, J.: Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics, Harvard University Press, 358 pp., ISBN 978-0-674-54587-8, 2016.
Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S.: “Coopetition” in business networks – to cooperate and compete simultane- ously, Ind. Market. Manag., 29, 411–427, 2000.
Bengtsson, M. and Raza-Ullah, T.: Paradox at an Inter-Firm Level: A Coopetition Lens, in: The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, edited by: Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., and Langley, A., Oxford University Press, 296–314, ISBN 978-0-19-875442-8, 2017.
Bevacqua, E., De Michele, C., Manning, C., Couasnon, A., Ribeiro, A. F. S., Ramos, A. M., Vignotto, E., Bastos, A., Blesic, S., Durante, F., Hillier, J. K., Oliveira, S. C., Pinto, J. G., Ragno, E., Rivoire, P., Saunders, K., van der Wiel, K., Wu, W., Zhang, T., and Zscheischler, J.: Guidelines for Studying Diverse Types of Compound Weather and Climate Events, Earth's Future, 9, e2021EF002340, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002340, 2021.
BIS: Guidelines for managing projects: How to organise, plan and control projects, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, URN 10/1257, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31979/10-1257-guidelines-for-managing-projects.pdf (last access: 7 April 2022), 2010.
Bostrom, M., Lidskog, R., and Uggla, Y.: A reflexive look at reflexivity in environmenal sociology, Environ. Soc., 3, 6–16, 2017.
Bou Nassar, J. A., Malard, J. J., Adamowski, J. F., Ramírez Ramírez, M., Medema, W., and Tuy, H.: Multi-level storylines for participatory modeling – involving marginalized communities in Tz'olöj Ya', Mayan Guatemala, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1283–1306, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1283-2021, 2021.
Bourne, L. and Weaver, P.: Mapping Stakeholders, in: Construction Stakeholder Management, Wiley-Blackwell, 99–120, edited by: Chinyio, E. and Olomolaiye, P., ISBN 978-1-4051-8098-6, 2009.
Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B.: Co-opetition, Doubleday, New York, ISBN 0-385-47949-2, 290 pp., 1996.
Carmine, S. and Marchi, V. D.: Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective, J. Bus. Ethics, 184, 139–158, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05112-2, 2023.
Clegg, S., Cunha, J., and Cunha, M.: Management paradoxes: A relational view, Human Relat., 55, 483–504, 2002.
Cook, G. A. S., Pandit, N. R., Beaverstock, J. V., Taylor, P. J., and Pain, K.: The role of location in knowledge creation and diffusion: evidence of centripetal and centrifugal forces in the City of London financial services agglomeration, Environ. Plan. A, 39, 1325–1345, 2007.
Cordner, A.: Strategic Science Translation and Environmental Controversies, Sci. Technol. Hum. Val., 40, 915–938, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915584164, 2015.
Cremen, G., Galasso, C., and McCloskey, J.: Modelling and quantifying tomorrow's risks from natural hazards, Sci. Total Environ., 817, 152552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152552, 2022.
De Luca, P., Hillier, J. K., Wilby, R. L., Quinn, N. W., and Harrigan, S.: Extreme multi-basin flooding linked with extra-tropical cyclones, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 114009, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10100577, 2017.
Denscombe, M.: The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects, 4th edn., Open University Press, 392 pp., ISBN 978-0-335-24138-5, 2010.
D'Este, P. and Patel, P.: University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry?, Res. Policy, 36, 1295–1313, 2007.
D'Este, P. and Perkmann, M.: Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations, J. Technol. Transfer, 36, 316–339, 2011.
Dixon, R., Souch, C., and Whitaker, D.: European windstorm: Needs of the insurance industry, 21–23 June 2017, Reading, UK, http://www.stormworkshops.org/workshop2017.html (last access: 20 November 2023), 2017.
Dowling, D. A.: The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations, 85 pp., BIS/15/352, UK government, https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/the-dowling-review-of-business-university-research (last access: 26 January 2024), 2015.
Evans, D.: Academics do want to engage with business, but need more support, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/academics-do-want-to-engage-with-business-but-need-more-support-62902 (last access: 26 January 2024), 2016.
Evans, J.: Lost in translation? Exploring the interface between local environmental research and policymaking, Environ. Plan. A, 38, 517–531, https://doi.org/10.1068/a37393, 2006.
Fahy, L. A.: Fostering regulator–innovator collaboration at the frontline: A case study of the UK's regulatory sandbox for fintech, Law and Policy, 44, 162–184, https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12184, 2022.
Fernandez, A.-S. and Chiambaretto, P.: Managing tensions related to information in coopetition, Ind. Market. Manag., 53, 66–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.010, 2016.
FloodRe: Flood Research Needs of the (Re)insurance sector, Lighthill Risk Network, http://lighthillrisknetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Flood-Research-Needs-of-the-Re-in-surance-sector.pdf (last access: 26 January 2024), 2019.
FT: Lloyd's of London warns insurers climate-related pain is still to come, Financial Times, 22 October 2023.
Gilad, S.: How Firms Translate Regulatory Messages, London School of Economics, London School of economics, Discussion paper no. 70, https://www.lse.ac.uk/accounting/assets/CARR/documents/D-P/Disspaper70.pdf (last access: 26 January 2024), 2012.
Glier, H. L., Gregory, E., Staples, T., Martinez, M., Fabos, A., Mitchell, S. E. D., and Downs, T. J.: Understanding stakeholder positionalities and relationships to reimagine asylum at the US–Mexico border: Observations from McAllen, TX, Human Geogr., 14, 96–109, https://doi.org/10.1177/1942778620979317, 2021.
Gnyawali, D. R. and He, J.: Co-opetition: Promises and challenges, in: 21st century management: A reference handbook, edited by: Wankel, C., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 386–398, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412954006, 2008.
Grabher, G.: Learning in Projects, Remembering in Networks?: Communality, Sociality, and Connectivity in Project Ecologies, European Urban and Reg. Stud., 11, 103–123, 2004.
Gregg, J. S., Nyborg, S., Hansen, M., Schwanitz, V. J., Wierling, A., Zeiss, J. P., Delvaux, S., Saenz, V., Polo-Alvarez, L., Candelise, C., Gilcrease, W., Arrobbio, O., Sciullo, A., and Padovan, D.: Collective Action and Social Innovation in the Energy Sector: A Mobilization Model Perspective, Energies, 13, 651, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030651, 2020.
Gulati, R.: Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis, Admin. Sci. Quart., 40, 619–652, 1995.
Guthrie, K. L. and McCracken, H.: Reflective Pedagogy: Making Meaning in Experiential Based Online Courses, The Journal of Educators Online, 7, 1–21, 2010.
Hadzilicos, G., Li, R., Harrington, P., Latchman, S., Hillier, J. K., Dixon, R., New, C., Alabaster, A., and Tsapko, T.: It's windy when it's wet: why UK insurers may need to reassess their modelling assumptions, Bank Underground, https://bankunderground.co.uk/2021/04/08/its-windy-when-its-wet-why-uk-insurers-may-need-to-reassess-their-modelling-assumptions/ (last access: 12 October 2021), 2021.
Hess, M.: “Spatial” relationships? Towards a Reconceptualization of Embeddedness, Human Geogr., 28, 165–186, 2004.
Hillier, J. K. and Dixon, R.: Seasonal impact-based mapping of compound hazards, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 114013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbc3d, 2020.
Hillier, J. K., Macdonald, N., Leckebusch, G. C., and Stavrinides, A.: Interactions between apparently primary weather-driven hazards and their cost, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 104003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104003, 2015.
Hillier, J. K., Foote, M., Tsanakas, A., Wardman, J., Mitchell-Wallace, K., Hughes, R., Dixon, R., Simeononva, B., and Brown, C.: Investing in science for natural hazards insurance, Figshare [data set], https://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.c.4322666, 2019a.
Hillier, J. K., Saville, G. R., Smith, M. J., Scott, A. J., Raven, E. K., Gascoigne, J., Slater, L. J., Quinn, N., Tsanakas, A., Souch, C., Leckebusch, G. C., Macdonald, N., Milner, A. M., Loxton, J., Wilebore, R., Collins, A., MacKechnie, C., Tweddle, J., Moller, S., Dove, M., Langford, H., and Craig, J.: Demystifying academics to enhance university–business collaborations in environmental science, Geosci. Commun., 2, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-1-2019, 2019b.
Hutchinson, D.: Scaffolding Project Management Best Practices through Experiential Learning in a Large Enrolment Online Course, Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 11, 1–8, 2018.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., and Nixon, R.: The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research, Springer, 214 pp., ISBN 978-981-4560-66-5, 2013.
Kim, J. and Parkhe, A.: Competing and cooperating similarity in global strategic alliances: An exploratory examination, Brit. J. Manage., 20, 363–376, 2009.
Kolb, D. A.: Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, 2nd edn., Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, ISBN 9780133892505, 2015.
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., and Laude, D.: Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future, Business & Society, 61, 1136–1196, 2022.
Lam, A.: What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: “Gold”, “ribbon” or “puzzle”?, Policy Res., 40, 1354–1368, 2011.
Lanzig, J.: Concept Mapping: Tools for Echoing the Minds Eye, Journal of Visual Literacy, 18, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.1998.11674524, 1998.
Lewis, M. W.: Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide, Acad. Manage. Rev., 25, 760–776, 2000.
Lörinc, M., Hotovy, O., and Podlaha, A.: Weather, Climate and Catastrophe Insight, Aon (Impact Forecasting), https://www.aon.com/getmedia/f34ec133-3175-406c-9e0b-25cea768c5cf/20230125-weather-climate-catastrophe-insight.pdf (9 November 2023), 2023.
Margalida, A., Kuiken, T., and Green, R. E.: Improving the Translation from Science to Environmental Policy Decisions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 2600–2600, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00145, 2015.
Mendelow, A. L.: Environmental Scanning – The Impact of the Stakeholder Concept, ICIS 1981 Proceedings, 20, 407–418, 1981.
Miller, T., Baird, T., Littlefield, C., Kofinas, G., and Redman, C.: Epistemological Pluralism: Reorganizing Interdisciplinary Research, Ecol. Soc., 13, 46, https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art46/, 2008.
Mitchell-Wallace, K., Jones, M., Hillier, J. K., and Foote, M.: Natural Catastrophe Risk Management and Modelling: A Practitioner's Guide, Wiley, Oxford, UK, 506 pp., ISBN 978-1-118-90604-0, 2017.
Mowrey, D. C. and Nelson, R. R. (Eds.): Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology before and after the Bayh-Doyle Act, Stanford University Press, Stanford, ISBN 9780804795296, 2004.
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., and Balvanera, P.: Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research, Nat. Sustain., 3, 182–190, 2020.
Nooteboom, B.: Inter-firm Collaboration, Learning and Networks, Routledge, 240 pp., ISBN 978-0-415-32954-5, 2004.
Ostrom, E.: A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change, World Bank, Washington, DC, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/9034, 2010.
Oxley, J. E. and Sampson, R. C.: The scope and governance of international R&D alliances, Strateg. Manage. J., 25, 723–749, 2004.
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K.: University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda, Int. J. Manag. Rev., 9, 259–280, 2007.
Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A., and Ruto, E.: Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research, J. Environ. Manage., 95, 56–65, 2012.
PRA: A framework for assessing financial impacts of physical climate change: A practitioner's aide for the general insurance sector, Bank of England, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2019/a-framework-for-assessing-financial-impacts-of-physical-climate-change (last access: 6 April 2020), 2019.
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., and Evely, A. C.: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management, J. Environ. Manage., 91, 1766–1777, 2010.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., and Kock, S.: The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels, Marketing Management, 43, 189–198, 2014.
Reed, M.: Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review, Biol. Conserv., 141, 2417–2431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014, 2008.
Reed, M. S.: The research impact handbook, 2nd edn., ISBN 978-0-9935482-4-6, 2018.
Ritala, P.: Coopetition strategy – When is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance, Brit. J. Manage., 23, 307–324, 2012.
Romance, N. R. and Vitale, M. R.: Concept Mapping as a Tool for Learning: Broadening the Framework for Student-Centered Instruction, College Teaching, 47, 74–79, https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559909595789, 2010.
Scott, A., Carter, C., Hardman, M., Grayson, N., and Slayney, T.: Mainstreaming ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: Exploiting a hybrid opportunity space, Land Use Policy, 70, 232–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.002, 2018.
Simpson, N. P., Mach, K. J., Constable, A., Hess, J., Hogarth, R., Howden, M., Lawrence, J., Lempert, R. J., Muccione, V., Mackey, B., New, M. G., O'Neill, B., Otto, F., Portner, H.-O., Reisinger, A., Roberts, D., Schmidt, D. N., Seneviratne, S., Strongin, S., van Aalst, M., Totin, E., and Trisos, C. H.: A framework for complex climate change risk assessment, One Earth, 4, 489–501, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.03.005, 2021.
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., and Langley, A. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, Oxford University Press, 622 pp., https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.001.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-875442-8, 2017.
Stadtler, L. and Van Wassenhove, L. N.: Coopetition as a Paradox: Integrative Approaches in a Multi-Company, Cross-Sector Partnership, Organization Studies, 37, 655–685, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615622066, 2016.
Taylor, Z. J. and Weinkle, J.: The riskscapes of re/insurance, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13, 405–422, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaa015, 2020.
Thistlethwaite, J.: The ClimateWise Principles, Bus. Soc., 51, 121–147, 2012.
Timms, P., Hillier, J. K., and Holland, C. P.: Increase data sharing or die? An initial view for natural catastrophe insurance, Geography, 107, 26–37, https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2022.2019494, 2022.
UKRI: 2022–23 to 2024–25 budget allocation for UK Research and Innovation, UK Research and Innovation, UKRI, https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/UKRI-Budget-Allocations-2022-25_FINAL2.pdf (last access: 26 January 2024), 2022.
UNEP: Insuring the climate transition: Enhancing the insurance industry's assessment of climate change futures, UN Environment Programme, ISBN 978-92-807-3822-3, 2021.
Van Meeteren, M.: Learning by Bumping: Pathways of Dutch Smes to Foreign Direct Investment in Asia: Pathways of Dutch Smes to Foreign Direct Investment in Asia, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 106, 471–485, https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12121, 2014.
Van Meeteren, M. and Bassens, D.: Financial geography has come of age: making space for intradisciplinary dialogue, Finance and Space, 1, https://doi.org/10.1080/2833115X.2023.2258046, 2024.
Walker, D. H. T., Bourne, L. M., and Shelly, A.: Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization, Construction Management and Economics, 26, 645–658, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701882390, 2008.
Ward, V., House, A., and Hamer, S.: Developing a framework for transferring of knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature, J. Health Serv. Res. Policy, 14, 156–164, 2009.
Weinkle, J. L.: Experts, regulatory capture, and the “governor's dilemma”: The politics of hurricane risk science and insurance, Regulation & Governance, 14, 637–652, 2020.
Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 336 pp., https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932, ISBN 978-0-521-66363-2, 1998.
Williams, T. G., Brown, D. G., Guikema, S. D., Logan, T. M., Magliocca, M. R., Müller, B., and Steger, C. E.: Integrating Equity Considerations into Agent-Based Modeling: A Conceptual Framework and Practical Guidance, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 25, 1–26, https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4816, 2022.
WSP: Interacting Risks in Infrastructure and the built and natural environments, CCRA research series, Report number: 70051310, https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/ccra-research/ (last access: 26 January 2024), 2020.
Short summary
Co-RISK is a workshop-based
toolkitto aid the co-creation of joint projects in various sectors (e.g. insurance, rail, power generation) impacted by natural hazard risks. There is a genuine need to quickly convert the latest insights from environmental research into real-world climate change adaptation strategies, and a gap exists for an accessible (i.e. open access, low tech, zero cost) and practical solution tailored to assist with this.
Co-RISK is a workshop-based
toolkitto aid the co-creation of joint projects in various sectors...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint