Report on the RENKEI Researcher Workshop:
Developing Japan-UK Research Collaborationin Climate Change
Hosted by Newcastle University,
2 – 4 December 2019

2

Contents
Executive summary

4

Day One5

Welcome addresses

5

Keynote: climate resilient infrastructure

5

Panel discussion

6

Setting the scene

7

Learning walk9

Interactive session – speed collaboration in threes to generate research ideas

9

Day Two11

Getting acquainted

11

Interactive sessions – developing collaborative research proposals

11

Funder talks

12

Day Three14

Research proposals and pitches for seed funding

14

Changing behaviours and influencing policy

14

Reflections on the RENKEI workshop

15

Feedback from workshop participants

17

3

Executive summary•

19 researchers from 5 Japanese universities and 17 researchers from 5 UK universities
participated in the workshop. 47% of participants were female; 53% of respondents to theworkshop survey identified themselves as early career researchers; each university sent atleast one researcher from the social sciences or humanities.

•

Presenters and panellists included representatives from academia, UK governmental
committees and local governments, and funding bodies.

•

Participants worked in seven groups to produce proposals for interdisciplinary collaborative
research on the six sub-themes of the workshop:-

Low carbon societies and green infrastructure
Future risks and adaptation in floods and water shortage
Future risks and adaptation in food production and security
Managing future risks and building resilience in urban areas
Future risks and adaptation in ecosystems
Future risks and adaptation in human health•

Seed funding of GBP 5,000 each was awarded to two research proposals, “Communitybased forest management under a changing climate in Japan: evidence throughexperimentation” and “Improved water management, a citizen science co-design approach”.

•

60% of respondents to the workshop survey stated that they were “very satisfied” with theworkshop overall; a further 37% were “satisfied”. 73% considered that they had foundpotential collaborators for research and would follow up with them after the workshop.

•

Funding agency priorities proved to overlap with many of the workshop research themes.

•

Participants are encouraged to join the third RENKEI researcher workshop, which will behosted by Kyoto University on 22 – 24 June 2020.

4

Day One
Welcome addresses
Jamie Gibbings, Acting Director, British Council Japan, addressed participants on behalf of the
RENKEI secretariat, reminding them that climate change was not only a priority theme for RENKEI
but also a key strategic area of science and technology collaborations between Japan and the UK
identified by the then Prime Ministers of both countries in 2017. He encouraged participants tothink creatively when developing their joint research proposals.
Professor Richard Davies, PVC Global of Newcastle University, welcomed participants to the host
university. He introduced the history of the site, a former coal mine which is now home to one of
the largest urban data collection projects in the UK, and about the importance of better data inorder to make good decisions. He also talked about the need for universities, as largeorganisations, to work together internationally with governments, businesses, and others toaddress climate change and to share best practice.

Keynote: climate resilient infrastructure
Professor Richard Dawson of Newcastle University, a member of the Adaptation Committee, UK
Committee on Climate Change, gave the keynote speech. The UK Committee on Climate Change
provides independent advice to government on building a low-carbon economy and preparing forclimate change. The UK’s Climate Change Act (2008) mandates not only greenhouse gas
mitigation, but also risk assessment and adaptation. A national climate change risk assessment iscarried out every 5 years, and in turn informs national adaptation planning led by the Adaptation
Committee. The six priority areas of risk and adaptation identified align closely with the RENKEI
sub-themes.
5Professor Dawson emphasised the importance of taking a systems-level approach to risk analysis.
Infrastructure risks are interconnected, and so impacts can reach further than an initial extreme
weather event, but reliance on ICT means that the connections may not be obvious until anemergency: he gave the example of a power outage in York making it impossible to call an
ambulance in Newcastle, 120 kilometres away. He introduced some innovative solutions, such as
the introduction of minibuses on demand which have actually made journeys faster by removing
vehicles from the roads, and tunnels which can become flood storage devices if necessary.
Feedback from the participant survey:•

Very interesting opening talk that did an excellent job at describing the backdrop for theworkshop.

•

Very informative. I learned the current situation of UK in terms of adaptation for flood
disasters.

•

I learn a lot of perspective for climate policy especially adaptation strategy. The risks arealmost same as Japanese cities.

•

Enjoyable.

Panel discussion
Professor Suraje Dessai from the University of Leeds, a UKRI NERC (UK Research and Innovation
Natural Environment Research Council) Climate Change Resilience Champion, and Professor
Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University, Director of the ONE Planet NERC Doctoral Training
Programme, discussed the ways in which research into climate change impacts policy-making at
various levels. Aimee Nelson of Siemens was unfortunately unable to participate due to illness, but
her presentation was shared with the participants.
Professor Dessai explained that his research interest was in characterising and representing
uncertainty and feeding this into decision-making. With various system models and thousands ofsimulations, what is a robust decision, and how does complex, technical scientific information get
used in decision-making?
UKRI’s Strategic Priorities Fund, which seeks to drive an increase in high quality multi andinterdisciplinary research and innovation which matches government and strategic research
priorities and opportunities, has chosen “UK Climate Resilience” as one theme. GBP 18 million offunding is being provided by several research agencies and the MET Office to characterize andquantify climate risks and develop better spatial modelling capability. Another important researcharea is developing prototypes for the translation of climate knowledge into services which can beused by a wider audience.
Professor Fowler talked about the development of new modelling approaches to understandchanging climate-related hazards around the world, for example to predict short-duration extreme
rainfall. She also spoke of the need to address how we take blue-sky science through to policy
6

guidance and practice, mentioning the Climate Change Conventions which have been set up insome UK cities to address how to bring them to Net Zero while also adapting to climate change.
Feedback from the participant survey:•

Interesting to hear from both professors.

•More interaction might have been nice.

•

I was not aware of some of the resources mentioned here and will likely use them in the
future.

•Very informative. I learned the latest research activities for adaptations.

Setting the scene
Short presentations on each of the workshop sub-themes outlined the main research issues ineach area:
Low carbon societies and green infrastructure•

How to make cities, in particular, more sustainable.

•

Green infrastructure: network of natural spaces and corridors in urban areas.

Future risks and adaptation in floods and water shortage•

There are climatic factors, geomorphologic factors, and human activity factors•

Trade-off of demands in different zones (catchment, water-use area, floodplain). Watershedmanagement is very important.

7

Future risks and adaptation in food production and security•

Inextricably linked with climate change. Big drops in food production are likely.

•

We have to work in collaboration with breeders, since it takes 20 years to develop goodquality new seeds.

•

We need climate-smart indicators to balance different factors in agricultural management.

Managing future risks and building resilience in urban areas•

More and more people live in cities, so vulnerability is concentrated.

•

We need to think about both the city and its wider catchments (food, energy, water supplies
must be resilient, too).

•This is not just about hazards, but about the resilience of different systems.

Future risks and adaptation in ecosystems•

Ecosystem services: food, materials, also cultural services such as recreation.
How are these reduced in case of disasters?

•

Ecosystem-based adaptation, including conservation, sustainable management, restoration.

Future risks and adaptation in human health•

Climate change influences human health in many ways, e.g. heat and cold, new infections,flooding, as well as disruption of health services, more expensive food.

•

It is complex, since vulnerability depends on e.g. socio-economic status, age, pre-existingillnesses.

•

We need to understand increased demand, existing strategies, and the different
consequences of these.

8Learning walk
The Newcastle Helix, the site of the workshop venue, is very heavily monitored as part of an urban
data collection project in which 1,000 observations per second are collected across the city of
Newcastle as a whole, with the aim of generating a body of data which allows researchers tounderstand interdependencies of scale.
Participants were taken on a tour of the site in which they saw some examples of this data
monitoring, including landscaping features which serve as climate data collection devices and flood
defences.

Interactive session – speed collaboration in threes to generate research ideas
In the last session of the first day, participants were put into small groups containing both naturaland social scientists and asked to introduce their research and then brainstorm as manycollaborative research ideas as possible, however far-fetched. The process was repeated several
times, and prizes were given to the groups who came up with the most ideas!
Feedback from the participant survey:•

Very interesting and interactive for a short time!

•

Great idea to open the event with.

•

It was useful to hear about the research interests from as many people as possible.

•

This is hit and miss. I think I prefer “slower” group work that follows.

•

My favourite part of the workshop.

9

10

Day Two
Getting acquainted
At the start of the second day, each participating university briefly introduced its research and otherinitiatives in the area of climate change. For example, Kyushu University explained how its new
campus was the first in Japan to observe the principle of zero net loss of biodiversity; Nagoya
University introduced a proposal for a joint research project into “Technological Innovation, Future
Energy, and Sustainable Development: A Competitive Study of UK and Japan”; Leeds University
talked of its involvement with policy at international, national, and local levels; and several
universities mentioned how they worked closely with citizens and local communities.

Interactive sessions – developing collaborative research proposals
The majority of the time on the second day was dedicated to interactive sessions in which
participants worked together to come up with ideas for collaborative, interdisciplinary research anddevelop proposals to pitch for seed funding the following morning.
Participants were divided into seven groups to work on each of the workshop sub-themes (withseparate groups working on “Low carbon societies” and “Green infrastructure” since the initialgroup was large). They were provisionally allocated to groups by the workshop organisers basedon their research interests, with the opportunity to change groups if they so wished; however, few
chose to do so. The sessions were guided by the moderator, Jon Turner of Edinburgh University,and participants were deeply engaged, continuing their discussions over their lunch of fish andchips, and into the evening. However, the deliberate decision was made not to record these
discussions, in order to allow the participants to engage freely in debate; the outcomes can beseen in the research proposals.
Feedback from the participant survey:•

This was the most challenging yet so fun activity. Integrating different expertise into one
team was the most memorable experience for me.

•

This was fantastic and really pushed me out of my comfort zone.

•

Brilliant - we had very good discussions and built a strong team for future collaborations.

•

Very intense session with lots of good ideas being generated.

•

Very nice. We could discuss to make one research plan with colleagues having different
backgrounds. To discuss with PhD students and early career researchers was a good
opportunity to know more each other. It was good that PhD students and early career
researchers took a lead of discussion and other researchers help to make a research plan.

•

Enjoyed this activity overall, but wish more time was allocated to develop ideas further.
11

Funder talks
However great a research idea may be, it needs funding to move beyond the drawing board.
RENKEI was able to provide limited seed funding to two of the projects coming out of thisworkshop, but the organisers also wanted to provide an opportunity for some major funding bodies
to introduce their research priorities and funding schemes to participants. It became clear fromtheir presentations that their priorities coincide with many of the RENKEI research themes inclimate change.
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
JSPS is the largest funding agency in Japan, and its remit includes advancing international
cooperation. Funding is available for bilateral and multilateral research collaborations between
institutions, as well as for fellowships for individual researchers. Postdoctoral fellowships allow
early career researchers (within six years of graduation) to travel overseas for a period of between
one month and two years, while invitation fellowships are open to more senior researchers. The
application period for each is September – October. JSPS’ website, JSPS.org, includes a research
map as well as a list of research projects.
Wellcome Trust
The Wellcome Trust is known as a funding body in the biomedical sciences, but has recently
expanded its remit to include “planetary health”. The vision of this work is “a world in which thenatural systems that support health are sustainable across generations, enabling health for all
people”. The first five-year phase of this work is coming to a close, and specific priority researchareas for the next phase are currently being defined.
UK Research and Innovation’s National Environmental Research Council (UKRI NERC)
The NERC aims to champion the importance of environmental solutions in contributing to clean
growth; nurture a generation of researchers who take a systems approach to complex
environmental problems; sustain UK international leadership and work internationally to tackle
environmental challenges; and work with global partners. The Global Partnership Seedcorn Fundoffers small grants of GBP 100,000 over two years to help build new international partnerships; the12next call for this will be February 2020. Meanwhile, a fund for international collaboration is currently
working with Canadian partners on a large-scale project; there may be opportunities for RENKEI topropose a similar UK-Japan project. NERC prefers multiple partners to come together with acouple of ideas that span a couple of the priority areas in order to make applications, rather thanreceiving different ideas from multiple different partnership groups.
Feedback from the participant survey:•

Informative, especially the part that mentions specific future calls.

•

Very useful to see the landscape (but bad luck about timing).

•

Helpful information and pointers for how to potentially fund future collaborations, but it's
always difficult to know if a call will be released that corresponds to your project.

13

Day Three
Research proposals and pitches for seed funding
The final day of the workshop began with presentations of their research proposals by each of thegroups. The following proposals were presented; further details can be found in each of thepresentations.
•

Community-based forest management under a changing climate in Japan: evidence
through experimentation (awarded seed funding)•

Improved water management: a citizen science co-design approach (awarded seedfunding)•

To cultivate or to migrate: food security in a changing climate•

Metal contamination, rice and health in changing climate•

Outreach toolkit for linking university sustainability to wider communities•

Sustainable resource mapping•

Virtual twins: connecting co-developed transition pathways for resilience of low-carbon
urban transport

All the proposals were of a very high quality and deserved to be pursued further. When making thedifficult decision about the awards, the judging panel took into consideration the collaborative,
interdisciplinary nature of the research, its originality and potential contribution, and the likely
impact of seed funding. However, they emphasised that there would be further seed funding
opportunities at the 2020 RENKEI climate change workshop in Kyoto, and encouraged participants
to develop their proposals in the interim.

Changing behaviours and influencing policy
Professor Andy Gouldson of the University of Leeds, who chairs the Leeds Climate Commission,
introduced its work. The Commission is one of the leaders of PCAN (Place-based Climate Action
Network), which works with cities around the world to enable and implement projects to reduceclimate impact. It started in 2010 with a project which forecast that Leeds could save £277 million
annually by 2030 by exploiting only the cost-effective or profitable climate action options across thecity. This changed the climate action narrative into a positive one. The Commission developed
league tables of effectiveness of smaller actions that could be taken by both households andbusinesses, and local climate action has seen a 48% drop in carbon emissions since 1990, withprojections that it will drop by 56% by 2050.

14

Leeds Climate Commission brings together key actors from across the city to build capacities foraction; to guide and track the transition towards a low carbon, climate resilient future; to inform
policies and shape actions amongst local stakeholders and decision makers; and to celebrate
successes. With 24 commissioners and 40+ members drawn from across the public, private, andthird sectors, it provides independent oversight and advice on climate action in the city, identifying
potential barriers and solutions.
Adrian McLoughlin, Newcastle City Council Climate Change Advisor, talked about the steps being
taken by local government in the city after declaring a climate emergency in April 2019. There is
still a gap between the ambitious agenda laid out in the Council’s declaration and the developmentof practicable strategies, particularly given limitations on staffing. However, public awareness is
growing and the Council is more responsive to calls for climate action.
The Council is using a mixture of small scale technical innovations (home heating) and larger-scale
projects (renovation of homes, hospitals, universities) identified to meet carbon reduction goals.
Cities and local areas are given smaller-scope reduction trajectories and energy budgets to allow
them to take responsibility for their own emission contributions. In this process, the Low Carbon
Pathway tool is helpful to identify means of going beyond national policy to improve carbon
emissions in local areas, since it allows for a comparison of strategies and carbon reduction planscurrently in place with other cities in the UK to identify effective and practicable options.
Feedback from the participant survey:•

It was nice to bring in some local examples, and also helped people perhaps understandbetter the pressures local government deals with.

•

It was really informative and new for me to know local government is very active to reduceCO2.

•

I think it is good to hear what local government councils are trying, and how mitigation andadaptation scientists can help. We need more of this, and also adaptation/mitigation
scientists to talk directly to us climate scientists. It will help force us out of own box.

•

I wonder if there are any other models to explain changing behaviours than having models(showing numbers) and influencing communities through policies or committees. Comingfrom planning/policy discipline, everything looks so similar and feel we need anewer/innovative approach to explain about this.

Reflections on the RENKEI workshop
Participants were reminded that RENKEI prioritises the development of deep, ongoingcollaborative relationships between researchers and institutions in Japan and the UK, with anemphasis on quality rather than quantity. As such, they were strongly encouraged to participate in
the third RENKEI researcher workshop, which will be hosted by Kyoto University on 22 – 24 June
2020. The workshop will focus on will focus on further steps to generate research-related15

outcomes and education collaborations, and explore ways of transferring the research results into
policy and practice.
Finally, participants responded to a survey (the details of which are in the following section,“Feedback from workshop participants”) and gave one-word reflections on the workshop.

16

Feedback from the workshop participants
Respondents
Participants responded to an online survey about the workshop during the final session. There
were 30 respondents out of the 36 participants; 17 (57%) were from Japanese universities, and 13(43%) from UK universities. Just over half considered themselves to be early career researchers.

23% of UK respondents had previously worked with Japanese universities, while just 12% ofJapanese respondents had worked with UK universities. All of the latter had done so as part of a
British Council programme. Just under a quarter of respondents had attended previous RENKEI
events.

17

18

Perceived benefits from the workshop
Most respondents agreed that the workshop had helped them build new connections.

Respondents tended to agree that the workshop helped them better understand what type ofclimate change research was being conducted in other RENKEI universities; however, more of theJapanese respondents were ambivalent about this. This was perhaps due to differing expectations,or perhaps partly to the language barrier.

While the majority of respondents felt that they gained a better understanding of climate change
issues for policy and industry, nearly a third were ambivalent or disagreed; again, Japanese
respondents were more likely to feel this way. This could be due to the fact that presentations
tended to focus on UK examples, which they may have felt to be less relevant.

19

Almost all respondents agreed that they benefited through meeting with researchers from different
cultures.

I benefited from participating in this workshop
through meeting with researchers from different
cultures
60%
50%
40%
30%

20%
10%
0%
1

2

3
UK

4

5

Japan

Most also felt that they benefited from meeting with researchers at different career stages, though
Japanese respondents were less likely to feel this way. Since the mix of career stages among
participants from each country was roughly similar, this seems to be a question of perceived
benefits rather than of the participant body.

20Overall, around 70% of respondents from each country felt that their participation in the workshop
would benefit their future careers, while the remainder were unsure.

Prospects for future research collaboration
65% of Japanese respondents and 85% of UK respondents identified common issues which they
wished to pursue further with researchers from the other country, while 76% of Japanese
respondents and 69% of UK respondents found potential research collaborators with whom they
intended to follow up after the workshop. Given that generating collaborative research was theprimary aim of the workshop, it can be considered quite successful.

21

What worked and what needs improvement
Respondents were asked to write what they liked most about the workshop and what they would
most like to see improved.
Several respondents chose the opportunity to meet and interact directly with new people and towork together on research projects as their favourite aspects of the workshop.
•

Meeting new people and friends, having inspiring ideas.

•

Size and quality of participants and groups.

22•

I like the arrangement of the workshop. Face-to-face talking is a more direct way to know
the latest research from other disciplines.

•

Building the research projects was a fantastic day - pushing boundaries and getting to know
potential collaborators.

•

The variety of interactions that were promoted through the carefully planned schedule. Also
want to commend the supportive structure that was deployed to tease out the project ideas.

•Interactive nature and ECR engagement.

•

Dynamic interaction.

•

The positive atmosphere, friendliness and CC-related insights.

There was more variety among the suggestions for improvement, a sample of which are included
below. However, a couple of points which were mentioned by several respondents were increased
opportunities to engage with the posters and to involve early career researchers. These issues will
be addressed in future workshop planning.
•

Enjoyed hearing from the policy side but would be great to hear more about what theprivate sector is doing on climate change.

•

Hear more from early-career researchers.

•

Include 1 minute pitches for posters - to ensure wider engagement with poster session.

•More focused agenda and topics setting so that very relevant researchers get together.

•

The dating sessions were too short- we need more time to get to know colleagues for futurecollaborations.

•

Perhaps aim higher about a larger project outline next time as the outcome. Have a good
idea, write a one page outline, think about funding afterwards.

•

An idea: I wonder if a future workshop could include a reader on a specific topic, and eachresearcher could submit a reading (either by them or someone else) to provoke thought
before the workshop?

•

Next time please choose some days warmer.

Final comments and suggestions•

I hope we will have opportunities to be engaged in the network, for instance, as alumni. I
believe those who could participate in the next workshop and the following will be limited.

•

I think we can do some field visiting to see the local efforts for climate change.
23•It's a good idea to include more consideration of policy applications, community outreachand education.

•

Keep them going - we're building a really strong community!

24