Part I - Experiments
Exploring Innovations in Climate Governance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Summary
This chapter suggests that local climate and energy-related experiments evolve and gain traction through intrinsically spatial processes. It is argued that the concrete places (e.g. cities, regions) where alternative concepts and practices form, develop and travel to may largely influence their journeys towards becoming more than experiments. These issues are explored with the support of a framework based on notions of anchoring and mobility, developed in the field of economic geography and recently elaborated in transition studies. This framework is illustrated with the journeys of Community Choice Aggregation across the United States, a local community energy concept in which local governments may aggregate demand and procure green electric power on behalf of its constituents.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 47 - 120Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Asmus, P. (2009). Introduction to energy in California. In Faber, Phyllis M. and Pavlik., B., California Natural History Guides. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A. J., Raven, R., Lebel, L., and Bai, X. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: Innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental Science & Policy, 13(4), 261–271.Google Scholar
Bessant, J., and Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binz, C., Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2014). Why space matters in technological innovation systems – Mapping global knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor technology. Research Policy, 43(1), 138–155.Google Scholar
Binz, C., Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2016). Path creation as a process of resource alignment and anchoring: Industry formation for on-site water recycling in Beijing. Economic Geography, 92(2), 172–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H., and Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.Google Scholar
California Energy Commission (2006). Community Choice Aggregation. Sacramento: Local Government Commission, California Energy Commission.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, L., Lazzerini, I., and van Tuijl, E. (2014a). Seventh Case Study: San Francisco. Working paper 16/2014, Enel Foundation, Rome.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L., Mingardo, G., and Van Haaren, J. (2012). Green urban transport policies and cleantech innovations: Evidence from Curitiba, Göteborg and Hamburg. European Planning Studies, 20(3), 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, L., Santos, I. P., and Van Winden, W. (2014b). Knowledge spaces and places: From the perspective of a ‘born-global’ start-up in the field of urban technology. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(12), 5647–5655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Climate Protection (12 February 2016). Active Community Choice Agencies and in the Process of Formation in California. Data sheet. Sonoma County, CA: Centre for Climate Protection.Google Scholar
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., and Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968–979.Google Scholar
Coenen, L., Raven, R., and Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
Crevoisier, O., and Jeannerat, H. (2009). Territorial knowledge dynamics: From the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1223–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Propris, L., and Crevoisier, O. (2011). From regional anchors to anchoring. In Cooke, P., Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 167–177). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., and Leeuwis, C. (2012). Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 5, 1–18.Google Scholar
Faulkner, K. (2010). Community Aggregation Choice in California. Unpublished paper, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8), 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F., and Deuten, J. (2006). Local and global dynamics in technological development: A socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 265–275.Google Scholar
Geels, F., and Raven, R. (2006). Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: Ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 375–392.Google Scholar
Hansen, T., and Coenen, L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 92–109.Google Scholar
Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Truffer, B. (2002). Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43(8), 1370–1380.Google Scholar
Lagos, M., and Baker, D. (12 November 2013), CleanPowerSF remains mired in politics. San Francisco Chronicle.Google Scholar
LEAN Energy (n.d.). CCA by State. Accessed 3 March 2016, www.leanenergyus.org/cca-by-state/Google Scholar
Local Power (2016). Community Choice Aggregation. Accessed 10 March 2016, www.localpower.comGoogle Scholar
NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures) (December 2015). Community Choice Aggregation Policies. Accessed 3 March 2016, www.ncsl.org/research/energy/community-choice-aggregation.aspxGoogle Scholar
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) (2015). Status and Trends in the U.S. Voluntary Green Power Market. Report prepared under task No. SA15.0900. Golden, CO: NREL.Google Scholar
Raven, R., Schot, J., and Berkhout, F. (2012). Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 63–78.Google Scholar
Sane Society (2012). Paul Fenn: Origins of Community Choice Aggregation. Online interview, YouTube, posted on 18 November 2012.Google Scholar
Schot, J., and Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554.Google Scholar
Sengers, F., and Raven, R. (2015). Toward a spatial perspective on niche development: The case of Bus Rapid Transit. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 166–182.Google Scholar
Seyfang, G., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M., and Smith, A. (2014). A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 21–44.Google Scholar
Smith, A., and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036.Google Scholar
Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. (2012). Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Truffer, B., Murphy, J. T., and Raven, R. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Contours of an emerging theme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 63–72.Google Scholar
US Department of Energy (28 January 2016). Green Power Markets – Community Choice Aggregation. Accessed 3 March 2016, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70174.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vale, M., and Carvalho, L. (2013). Knowledge networks and processes of anchoring in Portuguese biotechnology. Regional Studies, 47(7), 1018–1033.Google Scholar
Wieczorek, A. J., Raven, R., and Berkhout, F. (2015). Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: A typology and the case of solar photovoltaic energy in India. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 149–165.Google Scholar
References
Biermann, F., and Pattberg, P. H. (2012). Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H., and Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H. A., Castán Broto, V., and Edwards, G. A. (2014). An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-technical Transitions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carmin, J., Anguelovski, I., and Roberts, D. (2012). Urban climate adaptation in the global south planning in an emerging policy domain. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 18–32.Google Scholar
Castán Broto, V., and Bulkeley, H. 2013. Maintaining climate change experiments: Urban political ecology and the everyday reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 1934–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, E. (2016). The political economy of urban climate adaptation and development planning in Surat, India. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(2), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, B. P., and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2013). The Collaborating Planner? Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J., Karvonnen, A., and Raven, R. (2016). The Experimental City. Abigndon, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farrelly, M., and Brown, R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 721–732.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary and Socio-technical Analysis. London, Amsterdam: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W., and Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.Google Scholar
Graham, S., and Thrift, N. (2007). Out of order understanding repair and maintenance. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. (2009). The new collaborative environmental governance: The localization of regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), 145–166.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfab, G., and Smith, A. (2013). Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 868–880.Google Scholar
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.Google Scholar
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2014). After Sustainable Cities? London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Robinson, B., and Swilling, M. (2012). Reshaping urban infrastructure. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(6), 789–800.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hommels, A. (2005). Unbuilding Cities: Obduracy in Urban Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Innes, J. E., and Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvonen, A., and van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 379–392.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D., and Wijsman, K. (2013). Business transition management: Exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 20–28.Google Scholar
McCann, E. (2011). Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 107–130.Google Scholar
McCann, E., and Ward, K. (2012). Policy assemblages, mobilities and mutations: Toward a multidisciplinary conversation. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 325–332.Google Scholar
McCann, E. J. (2008). Expertise, truth, and urban policy mobilities: Global circuits of knowledge in the development of Vancouver, Canada’s ‘four pillar’ drug strategy. Environment and Planning A, 40(4), 885–904.Google Scholar
McGuirk, P., Bulkeley, H., and Dowling, R. (2014). Practices, programs and projects of urban carbon governance: Perspectives from the Australian city. Geoforum, 52, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monstadt, J. (2009). Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures: Insights from technology and urban studies. Environment and Planning A, 41(8), 1924–1942.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. (1997). Inhuman/nonhuman/human: Actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15(6), 731–756.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M., and Persson, Å. (2012). Reprint of ‘Can Earth system interactions be governed? Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation with land use, freshwater and biodiversity protection’. Ecological Economics, 81, 10–20.Google Scholar
Olesen, K., and Richardson, T. (2012). Strategic planning in transition: Contested rationalities and spatial logics in twenty-first century Danish planning experiments. European Planning Studies, 20, 1689–1703.Google Scholar
Reed, M. G., and Bruyneel, S. (2010). Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: A three-dimensional review. Progress in Human Geography, 34(5), 646–653.Google Scholar
Robertson, T. S. (1967). The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
Roy, A., and Ong, A. (2011). Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Temenos, C., and McCann, E. (2013). Geographies of policy mobilities. Geography Compass, 7(5), 344–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewdwr-Jones, M., and Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(11), 1975–1989.Google Scholar
Turner, V. K. (2016). How do conventional master planning processes facilitate or constrain sustainable urbanism? An environmental management perspective. Society & Natural Resources, 29(12), 1483–1500.Google Scholar
Verebes, T. (2013). Masterplanning the Adaptive City: Computational Urbanism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
References
Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a Theory of reflexive modernization. In Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S., Reflexive Modernization Politics Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. 1–55. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F. (2002). Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 12, 1–4.Google Scholar
Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M., and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science Technology & Human Values, 35(4), 474–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogner, A. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 506–527.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumbes, P., and Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Translated by Burchell, G.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. (2008a). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 155–185.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J. (2008b). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: Mapping an emergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning A, 40(12), 2990–3008.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (2016a). Participation in the making: Rethinking public engagement in co-productionist terms. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 31–63.Google Scholar
Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (2016b). Remaking participation: Towards reflexive engagement. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 261–288.Google Scholar
Dawson, P., and Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9.Google Scholar
Elam, M., Reynolds, L., Soneryd, L., Sundqvist, G., and Szerszynski, B. (2007). Mediators of Issues and Mediators of Process. Brussels.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J. (2006). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., and Nelson, R. R. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Felt, U., and Wynne, B. (2007). Taking the European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research. Brussels: European Commission, 96.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristoliean Society, 56, 167–198.Google Scholar
Gisler, P., and Schicktanz, S. (2009). Introduction: Ironists, reformers, or rebels? Reflections on the role of the social sciences in the process of science policy making. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 5, 5–17.Google Scholar
Gottweis, H., Braun, K., and PAGANINI Consortium (2007). Participatory Governance and Insitutional Innovation. Final Report. Accessed 25/10/2017, www.univie.ac.at/LSG/paganini/finals_pdf/WP8_FinalReport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. (2010a). Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society and Ecological Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (2010b). The public proceduralization of contingency: Bruno Latour and the formation of collective experiments. Social Epistemology, 24(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
HM Treasury (2004). Science and Innovation Investment Framework: 2004–2014. Norwich: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M., Degen, M., and Whatmore, S. (2005). Urban wild things: A cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 643–658.Google Scholar
House of Lords (2000). Science and Society: The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Third Report.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Jasanoff, S., ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1–12.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 621–638.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2011). From multiculturalism to multinaturalism: What rules of method for the new socio-scientific experiments. Nature and Culture, 6(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 649–666.Google Scholar
Lezaun, J. (2007). A market of opinions: The political epistemology of focus groups. Sociological Review, 55, 130–151.Google Scholar
Lezaun, J., and Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 279–297.Google Scholar
Lorimer, J., and Driessen, C. (2014). Wild experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39, 169-181Google Scholar
Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780.Google Scholar
Marres, N., and Lezaun, J. (2011). Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society, 40(4), 489–509.Google Scholar
Michael, M. (2011). ‘What are we busy doing?’: Engaging the Idiot. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 528–554.Google Scholar
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.Google Scholar
Munton, R. (2003). Deliberative democracy and environmental decision-making. In Berkhout, F., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (eds.), Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward, Elgar, 109–136.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. (2004). On mediators: Intellectuals and the ideas trade in the knowledge society. Economy and Society, 33(4), 430–447.Google Scholar
Owens, S. (2000). ‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A, 32(7), 1141–1148.Google Scholar
Pallett, H. (2015). Public participation organizations and open policy: A constitutional moment for British democracy? Science Communication, 37(6), 769–794.Google Scholar
Pallett, H., and Chilvers, J. (2013). A decade of learning about publics, participation and climate change: Institutionalising reflexivity? Environment and Planning A, 45(5), 1162–1183.Google Scholar
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (2001). Open Channels: Public dialogue in Science and Technology. London: POST. www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pr153.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) (2002). Public Dialogue On Science & Technology, London: POST. Accessed, 25 October 2017, www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn189.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peck, J., and Theodore, N. (2015). Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Thresholds of Neoliberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Pieczka, M., and Escobar, O. (2013). Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 113–126.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. J., and Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. J. (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17–50.Google Scholar
Pol, E., and Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885.Google Scholar
Schot, J., and Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 54(1996), 251–268.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A., and Krohn, W. (2011). Experimenting with the concept of experiment: Probing the epochal break. In Nordmann, A., Radder, H., and Schiemann, G. (eds.), Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 119–134.Google Scholar
Seyfang, G., and Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16, 584–603.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soneryd, L. (2016). Technologies of participation and the making of technologised futures. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 144–161.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.Google Scholar
Szerszynski, B. (2005). Beating the Unbound: Political Theatre in the Laboratory Without Walls. In Giannachi, G., and Stewart, N. (eds.), Performing Nature: Explorations in Ecology and the Arts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 181–197.Google Scholar
Thorpe, C. (2010). Participation as post-Fordist politics: Demos, new labour, and science policy. Minerva, 48(4), 389–411.Google Scholar
Thorpe, C., and Gregory, J. (2010). Producing the post-Fordist public: The political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 19(3), 273–301.Google Scholar
Voβ, J.-P. (2016). Reflexively engaging with technologies of participation: Constructive assessment for public participation methods. In Chilvers, J., and Kearnes, M. (eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. London: Routledge, 238–260.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google 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.Google 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