Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- 3 Anchoring and Mobility of Local Energy Concepts
- 4 Realigning Circulations
- 5 Understanding Public Dialogue as an Embedded Democratic Innovation in UK Climate Governance
- 6 Broadening Experimentation through Research-Industry Collaboratives in the Australian Water Sector
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- Index
- References
6 - Broadening Experimentation through Research-Industry Collaboratives in the Australian Water Sector
from Part I - Experiments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- 3 Anchoring and Mobility of Local Energy Concepts
- 4 Realigning Circulations
- 5 Understanding Public Dialogue as an Embedded Democratic Innovation in UK Climate Governance
- 6 Broadening Experimentation through Research-Industry Collaboratives in the Australian Water Sector
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- Index
- References
Summary
Whether urban climate experimentation is productive for climate-resilient sustainability transitions is determined by the extent to which experimentation provides impulses to radical change that are embedded in and strategically connected with on-going policy and planning processes, thus building on and boosting new governance capacities. We analyse the transformative and orchestrating capacities manifest in the urban climate experimenting processes in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Transformative capacity enables developing and embedding novelty. Orchestrating capacity serves to coordinate multi-actor processes to facilitate and align experimentation. While actors in Rotterdam are successfully employing experimentation as a new governance mode to address climate change, sustainability and resilience, this approach is mainly legitimised by marketing the city internationally as a frontrunner in climate adaptation. As a result, individual innovations remain stand-alone initiatives. We can identify several capacity gaps, which point to mismatches between experimentation and on-going policy and planning processes, as well as across (strategic and operational) governance levels.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 103 - 120Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., and Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2), 50–65.Google Scholar
Barnett, J., and O’Neill, S. (2010). Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20, 211–213.Google Scholar
Bettini, Y., Rijke, J., Farrelly, M. A., and Brown, R. R. (2013). Connecting levels and disciplines: Connective capacity of institutions and actors explored. In Edelenbos, J., Bressers, N., and Scholten, P. (eds.), Water Governance as Connective Capacity. The Netherlands: Ashgate, 129–149.Google Scholar
Bos, J. J., and Brown, R. R. (2012). Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 1340–1353.Google Scholar
Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R., and Farrelly, M. A. (2013). A design framework for creating social learning situations. Global Environmental Change, 23, 398–412.Google Scholar
Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R., and Farrelly, M. A. (2015). Building networks and coalitions to promote transformational change: Insights from an Australian urban water planning case study. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15, 11–25.Google Scholar
Bos, J. J., and Farrelly, M. A. (2015). Industry Impact of the CaWSC Research Program: Insights from Five Case Studies. Melbourne, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.Google Scholar
Boardman, C., and Grey, D. (2010) The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centres as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. R., Ashley, R., and Farrelly, M. A. (2011). Political and professional agency entrapment: An agenda for urban water research. Water Resources Management, 25, 4037–4050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. R., and Farrelly, M. A. (2009). Delivering sustainable urban water management: A review of the hurdles we face. Water, Science and Technology, 59, 839–846.Google Scholar
Brown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A., and Loorbach, D. A. (2013). Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global Environmental Change, 23, 701–718.Google Scholar
Brown, R. R., Keath, N., and Wong, T. H. F. (2009). Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future regimes. Water, Science and Technology, 59, 455–468.Google Scholar
Brown, R. R., Wong, T. H. F., and Deletic, A. (2015). Interdisciplinarity: How to catalyse collaboration. Nature, 525, 315–317.Google Scholar
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRCWSC) (2013). Annual Report 2012/2013. Melbourne, Victoria: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.Google Scholar
Crona, B. I., and Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource extractors as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society, 11, 7.Google Scholar
Crona, B. L., and Parker, J. N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dentoni, D., and Bitzer, V. (2015). The role(s) of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multi-stakeholder initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 68–78.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J., and Karvonen, A. (2014) ‘Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon footprint’ – Urban laboratories and the governance of low-carbon futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 413–430.Google Scholar
Farrelly, M., and Brown, R. R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21, 721–732.Google Scholar
Ferguson, B., Brown, R. R., and Deletic, A. (2013). The enabling institutional context for integrated water management: Lessons from Melbourne. Water Research, 47, 7300–7314.Google Scholar
Fletcher, T. D., and Deletic, A. (2006). A Review of Existing Water Quality Knowledge to Inform the Development of Melbourne Water’s Waterways Water Quality Strategy. Melbourne: Melbourne Water Corporation.Google Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annual of Review Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S., and Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735–755.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., and Schot, J. (2010) Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, B. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67, 1–11.Google Scholar
Huitema, D., and Meijerink, S. V. (2009). Water transitions, policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons learned. In Huitema, D., and Meijerink, S. V. (eds.), Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions around the Globe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kampelmann, S., Van Hollebeke, S., and Vandergert, P. (2016). Stuck in the middle with you: The role of bridging organisations in urban regeneration. Ecological Economics, 129, 82–93.Google Scholar
Kern, F., and Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42, 391–408.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P. (2014) Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43, 1370–1380.Google Scholar
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., and Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7, 25–43.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S., Wong, T., and Porter, B. (2002). The planning and construction of an urban stormwater management scheme. Water Science and Technology, 45, 1–10.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23, 161–183.Google Scholar
Luederitz, C., Schapke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., Burch, S., et al. (2016). Learning through evaluation: A tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transitions experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005Google Scholar
Milly, P. C. D., Belancort, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M. Kendzewicz, Z. W. Lettenmaier, D. P., and Stouffler, R. (2008). Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science, 319, 573–574.Google Scholar
Morison, P. J., Brown, R. R., and Cocklin, C. (2010). Transitioning to a waterways city: Municipal context, capacity and commitment. Water Science and Technology, 62, 162–171.Google Scholar
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., and Loorbach, D. (2014). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.Google Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9489–9494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105Google Scholar
Perry, B. (2006). Science, society and the university: A paradox of values. Social Epistemology, 20, 201–19.Google Scholar
Ranga, M., and Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education, 27, 237–262.Google Scholar
Rip, A. (1995). Introduction of new technology: Making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology. Technological Analysis and Strategic Management, 7, 417–31.Google Scholar
Spath, P., and Rohracher, H. (2012). Energy regions: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39, 449–458.Google Scholar
Taylor, A., Cocklin, C., Brown, R., and Wilson-Evered, E. (2011) An investigation of champion-driven leadership processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 412–433.Google Scholar
Trencher, G. P., Yarime, M., and Kharrazi, A. (2013). Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 40–55.Google Scholar
Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., and Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41, 151–179.Google Scholar
Wiek, A., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., and Robinson, J. (2014). Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Research Evaluation, 23, 117–132.Google Scholar
Williams, P. (February 2010). Special agents: The nature and role of boundary spanners. Presentation at the ESRC Seminar Series on Collaborative Futures: New Insights from Intra and Inter-Sectoral Collaborations, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Wong, T. H. F., and Brown, R. R. (2009). The water sensitive city: Principles for practice. Water Science and Technology, 60, 673–682.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by