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
4 - Realigning Circulations
How Urban Climate Change Experiments Gain Traction
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
This chapter explores climate experiments and governance innovations in the context of the institutionalisation of practices of public participation in climate governance, drawing from approaches in STS (science and technology studies) and political science. It does this by drawing on in-depth ethnographic work on institutionalised approaches to public participation in the UK Government, namely the ‘public dialogue’ processes supported by Government-funded expert body Sciencewise around different science policy issues related to climate governance. Sciencewise’s public dialogues are studied as one particular ‘democratic innovation’ in climate governance, characterising a set of governance and democratic practices, materials and procedures which have developed and become standardised over time.
Recent criticisms of institutionalised practices of public participation have characterised these processes as laboratory experiments, closely framed and controlled in order to produce legitimate and acceptable outcomes. However, work on the histories, philosophies and geographies of scientific experimentation continually draws attention to the continual overflowing of laboratory experiments; showing that they are always social, and always have the potential break out of their narrow framings and controlled settings.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 69 - 84Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrelly, M., and Brown, R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 721–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary and Socio-technical Analysis. London, Amsterdam: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W., and Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Murdoch, J. (1998). The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum, 29(4), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 5
- Cited by