Communities of Innovation for Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: Niche Creation and Anticipation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present work is has a multidisciplinary aspect of climate change and it can be considered as a nice policy study. It has very useful data for researchers who work in climate change-related area.

• The current format is like an annual/final report of a funded project. It consists of very useful information but the current structure is not convenient for the journal. The structure should be simplified for readership and the traditional outline "Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion" can be given. For example, Section 2 can be concise and combined with the Introduction. At the same time, the whole Introduction section can be shortened. Some parts of Section 2 can be mentioned in Section 3.
• Section 3 can also be shortened. No need for Section 3.1 head, Literature review, it is already a small paragraph. 
• No need for Table 2, simply mention in the text.
• Do authors get permission from the people visible in Figure 2? This is not a suggested way in general. Also, check with the journal about this point. Real bodies and faces are generally not suggested for journal papers. It can be removed. 
• Section 5 is very nice, thanks for this effort. On the other hand, please significantly shorten Section 4.1 (you already touch some points in the Introduction and Methods),  Section 4.2 (it can also be removed, mentioned as a small paragraph in Section 4.1), Section 4.5, and Section 4.7. 
• A summary table of the Technological Readiness Level (according to EU standards) can be put in the Appendix. 
• Why text lines 742-744 and 804-820 are yellow-highlighted? 
  
  

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The present work has a multidisciplinary aspect of climate change and it can be considered as a nice policy study. It has very useful data for researchers who work in climate change-related areas.

• The current format is like an annual/final report of a funded project. It consists of very useful information but the current structure is not convenient for the journal. The structure should be simplified for readership and the traditional outline "Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion" can be given. For example, Section 2 can be concise and combined with the Introduction. At the same time, the whole Introduction section can be shortened. Some parts of Section 2 can be mentioned in Section 3.
• Section 3 can also be shortened. No need for Section 3.1 head, Literature review, it is already a small paragraph. 
• ALL THESE SUGGESTED SECTIONS HAVE BEEN REDUCED AND ALSO RE-STRUCTURED AS SUGGESTED BY THE REVIEWER
• No need for Table 2, simply mention in the text. THIS TABLE HAS NOW BEEN DELETED AND ADDED IN THE TEXT AS SUGGESTED
• Do authors get permission from the people visible in Figure 2? This is not a suggested way in general. Also, check with the journal about this point. Real bodies and faces are generally not suggested for journal papers. It can be removed. THIS FIGURE HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED
• Section 4 is very nice, thanks for this effort. On the other hand, please significantly shorten Section 4.1 (you already touch some points in the Introduction and Methods),  Section 4.2 (it can also be removed, mentioned as a small paragraph in Section 4.1), Section 4.5, and Section 4.7. 
• A summary table of the Technological Readiness Level (according to EU standards) can be put in the Appendix. THIS HAS NO BEEN ADDED AS ANNEX 2

Why text lines 742-744 and 804-820 are yellow-highlighted? THIS WAS AN ERROR, NOW CORRECTED

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents an investigation of the communities of innovation (COIs) for climate change adaptation and disaster risk. It concludes the way the COIs contribute to niche solutions and narrative change to help achieve social and environmental resilience to reframe and help transition and transform current systems into more resilient, future-oriented communities. The analysis of the challenge is also interesting. This investigation would help to improve the development of COIs for climate change adaptation. This manuscript is generally well organized and easy to follow. In general, the manuscript is of good quality, and I do not have any major criticism.

Specific comments:

L24 First time mention COIs

L115 remove one focus.

L540 [26] can not be the subject of a sentence.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

This manuscript presents an investigation of the communities of innovation (COIs) for climate change adaptation and disaster risk. It concludes the way the COIs contribute to niche solutions and narrative change to help achieve social and environmental resilience to reframe and help transition and transform current systems into more resilient, future-oriented communities. The analysis of the challenge is also interesting. This investigation would help to improve the development of COIs for climate change adaptation. This manuscript is generally well organized and easy to follow. In general, the manuscript is of good quality, and I do not have any major criticism.

Specific comments:

• L24 First time mention COIs
• L115 remove one focus.
• L540 [26] can not be the subject of a sentence.

THESE HAVE ALL BEEN REVISED AND CORRECTED

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented an interesting study containing conceptual definitions related to the Communities Of Innovations (COI) for climate change.  The study contains as well the results of an assessment conducted on different already established COIs with different characteristics. The study deserves publication as its contents may contribute to the discussion on organizational alternatives to tackle challenges related to climate change. In this respect, the goal of the article, as stated in Lines 76-78, is fulfilled.

A few remarks/questions:

• COIs seem to be an effective organisational model to cope with climate change related challenges from the technological point of view. This may explain why, as stated in lines 417-418, ‘innovators in our COIs were mainly “hard” scientists, engineers, modellers, etc, and to a much lesser extent “soft” scientists’. Have you detected a potential in COI’s to go beyond the pure technical/technological solution in topics related to climate change ? Influencing climate policy, raising awareness in decision makers and/or other stakeholders, for instance.  Or, is technological innovation the main (or only) purpose of organisations dealing with the impacts of climate change?
• Related to previous point. The paragraph in Lines 104-112 gives an interesting definition of COIs as “communities of practice that are dedicated to the support of innovation, where innovation is broadly defined as the ‘production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and the establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome’”. Which feature of COI’s in this definition is specifically concerned with climate change related problems? The definitions holds for organizational schemes driven by other motivations as well (commercial, for instance).
  
• It was interesting to learn from Table 1 that almost all COI’s have a particular focus (floods, fires). The exceptions to this are the COI’s in Albania and Berlin where all hazards are considered in their work. Does it make a difference in the efficiency of their work? Is it important to focus on a particular aspect? The text in lines 598-601 highlights the importance of focusing. Were Albania and Berlin performing less good than the others? Is this difference related to the finding reported in lines 511-514 where Albania and Berlin seem to have a different leadership scheme as compared to the other COI’s? 
• According to Figure 1, solution providers are an important part of the COI. This part of the triangle may consist of companies or individuals that are competitors. Have you detected conflicts arising from this? And, in general, how conflicts are dealt with within the COI?
• A specific question: What do the numbers in the table of Figure 3 really mean? Perhaps a more explanatory caption could help better understand the figures in the table. The caption says ‘Innovation activities’; what kind of activities?

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The authors presented an interesting study containing conceptual definitions related to the Communities Of Innovations (COI) for climate change.  The study contains as well the results of an assessment conducted on different already established COIs with different characteristics. The study deserves publication as its contents may contribute to the discussion on organizational alternatives to tackle challenges related to climate change. In this respect, the goal of the article, as stated in Lines 76-78, is fulfilled.

A few remarks/questions:

• COIs seem to be an effective organisational model to cope with climate change related challenges from the technological point of view. This may explain why, as stated in lines 417-418, ‘innovators in our COIs were mainly “hard” scientists, engineers, modellers, etc, and to a much lesser extent “soft” scientists’. Have you detected a potential in COI’s to go beyond the pure technical/technological solution in topics related to climate change ? Influencing climate policy, raising awareness in decision makers and/or other stakeholders, for instance.  Or, is technological innovation the main (or only) purpose of organisations dealing with the impacts of climate change? WE HAVE INCLUDED A SMALL TEXT IN THE DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT RAISED BY THE REVIEWER
• “Furthermore, we think COIs have the potential to go beyond the pure technical/technological solution in topics related to climate change Influencing climate policy at different scales, raising awareness in decision makers and/or other stakeholders, for instance, thus helping to build trust through information sharing.  Technological innovation is only one of the purposes of organisations dealing with the impacts of climate change. In cases where the proposed solution has emerged as a response to actual needs and priorities of the community, and where this is clearly and transparently communicated, it can be an easier start (from the technical) to gradually engage with the political, however this merits its own specific further research
• Related to previous point. The paragraph in Lines 104-112 gives an interesting definition of COIs as “communities of practice that are dedicated to the support of innovation, where innovation is broadly defined as the ‘production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and the establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome’”. Which feature of COI’s in this definition is specifically concerned with climate change related problems? The definitions hold for organizational schemes driven by other motivations as well (commercial, for instance).

• Therefore there can be communities of innovation in any number of areas. The main advantage in the case of innovation around climate change is the combination of both social and economic, as well as the renewal aspects, in a case where the system itself has to be radically transformed, spurred by both commercial and non commercial motivations, or as a hybrid. . 

• It was interesting to learn from Table 1 that almost all COI’s have a particular focus (floods, fires). The exceptions to this are the COI’s in Albania and Berlin where all hazards are considered in their work. Does it make a difference in the efficiency of their work? Is it important to focus on a particular aspect? The text in lines 598-601 highlights the importance of focusing. Were Albania and Berlin performing less good than the others? Is this difference related to the finding reported in lines 511-514 where Albania and Berlin seem to have a different leadership scheme as compared to the other COI’s?  In the case of the Berlin COI the hazard focus was not defined at the outset because the intention was to have the CoI itself define this. Ultimately the issue that was considered most relevant by the group was water scarcity. WE DO NOT THINK WE CAN MAKE ANY STRONG CONCLUSIONS WITH THE LIMITED DATA, WHAT WE CAN CONCLUDE IS THAT COIS OFFER A VERY ADAPTABLE STRUCTURE THAT EMERGES BOTTOM UP FROM THE NEEDS AND DEMANDS OF THE ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT MAKE UP THE COI. I.E. IT ALSO DEPENDS ON THEIR PRIORITY OF THE COI, SOME PREFER TO FOCUS TO IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS TO SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND SOME MIGHT PREFER TO BUILD UP THE COMMUNITY ASPECT TO DEVELOP AN INNOVATIVE CULTURE THAT CAN THEN ADDRESS A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS,
• According to Figure 1, solution providers are an important part of the COI. This part of the triangle may consist of companies or individuals that are competitors. Have you detected conflicts arising from this? And, in general, how conflicts are dealt with within the COI? WE HAVE ADDED A SHORT TEXT:  The dynamic generated because of the trust generated between all actors .through regular interaction helped to manage the inherent level of conflict and competition, to build that trust, the "leader" of the CoI has to clearly, concisely and recurrently (at specific points in the lifetime of the CoI) lay out the options that could be followed to manage any new IP generated
• A specific question: What do the numbers in the table of Figure 3 really mean? Perhaps a more explanatory caption could help better understand the figures in the table. The caption says ‘Innovation activities’; what kind of activities? WE HAVE ADDED A TEXT TO CLARIFY FURTHER

In Table 3 numbers represent the aggregate number, after COIS confirmed whether this activity had taken place in their COI. Thus, the numbers represent the aggregate of activities for all CoIs for that activity, the higher the number the more frequent that activity was across the COIS

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for revisions, the manuscript seems much better and readable now.