Cities as Niche Spaces for Socio Technical Innovation in Response to Climate Change

Cities as Niche Spaces for Socio   Technical Innovation in Response to Climate Change

It is becoming increasingly recognised that cities are niche spaces for socio technical innovation in relation to the adaptation and mitigation of climate change and sustainability. This covers many different issues which might include, extreme weather events, energy efficiency, energy networks and infrastructure, migrations and urban security. As humanity increasingly becomes an urban race the imperative is to encourage effective and long term change in relation to the threats posed by climate change. As such the urban environment needs to be explored from a complex and interrelated perspective on an international basis whist remaining sensitive to localised and specific challenges.  A sustainable development lens is an effective way of understanding these multifaceted and interconnected issues.  Using this perspective will expose the connections between social, political, economic and technological aspects of city life, governance and the social and material fabric of the city.  The following discussion provides an initial insight into the relationship between sustainable development and cities as spaces for socio technical innovation. 

Predominantly, conceptual frameworks for exploring innovation dynamics in sustainability transition focus on two main areas, these are Technological Innovation Systems  and the Multi-Level Perspective  (Coenen et al 2010).  However, it is becoming increasingly   recognized that these two seemingly disparate conceptual frameworks are lacking in their ability to adequately represent the complex realities of globalised world (Geeles 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). This is particularly so when exploring geographical locales, regardless of their embedded interconnectivity.  These epistemological frameworks are insufficient when exploring technological transitions that have multiple and undefined drivers. These observations are exponentially magnified when applied to the complexities of sustainable socio technical transitions that relate to climate change. In order to address these issues a more sophisticated conceptual framework is required, that is capable of exploring the social constructions and lock in for potential opportunities and solutions (Hulme 2009). This may be achieved through a broader synthesize of theoretical frameworks relating to governance, reflexivity, risk, complexity and uncertainty (Borne 2010b).

The conceptual framework alluded to above has already been successfully applied in order to explore emerging governance structures and the interaction between rural and urban locales throughout Devon and Cornwall (Borne 2009, 2010a). The focal point of the research was town and parish councils. The work visualised the town and parish councils as a nexus point locally embedded yet intimately interconnected to local and global networks and flows.  The work was therefore capable of exploring the interaction between the rural and urban and the global and the local.  This allowed the work to explore the complex interaction of local and global factors that resulted from globalised risk of climate change and the emergent properties that resulted. The work will ultimately create a new way of exploring social, economic, technical and environmental influences on governance structures (Borne 2012). For cities as niche spaces the framework can be synthesised with the specific areas that relate to city environments.  It can be up-scaled to accommodate the complex city zone and applied directly any empirical observations.

Using this framework  cities can be understood through the idea of local nodes or Niches and their position within broader global networks identified.  This is a perspective within the emerging socio technical transitions to sustainability that Coenen et al (2010) have identified as needing a significantly stronger research effort. Further work is needed that can   comparatively explore cities in different geographical context and their relationship to overall network dynamics.

The idea of a networked, information society as well as global cities has been broadly discussed for some time (Castells 1989; Sassen 2001; Taylor 2004).  However, the emergence of networks that respond to the imperatives of climate change and their impact on the city realm are more sparsely explored at the academic level.  Only recently are networks of academics and researchers organising to exchange knowledge on city networks and develop responses to climate change.  For example, the first conference of the Cities and Climate Change Network will take place this year in Berlin (2011). The number of networks and regimes both formal and informal that have been established in the past 10 years from a city governance and international level has also increased dramatically.  As a brief example, Living with Environmental Change, Local Authorities and Research Council Initiative,  C40 Cities, ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability, Urban Environmental Accord, US Conference of Mayors; World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement. With this in mind the dynamics and impacts of these networks lack coherent and rigorous analysis.  The approach outlined here focues on the  relationship between networks and the impact they have on an international basis.  Whilst the analysis of these networks is imperative this must be complimented with a more contextual city based research programme.

Cities throughout the world share some stark similarities and realities drawn into a society more aware of risk, particularly in the face of climate change (Beck 1999).  However, to assume these parallels are consistent and equitable largely reduces the historical, political, social, cultural and environmental dimensions that endure and continue to lock in regions to particular developmental patterns. For example, cities that are part of the large emerging economies of China, India and Brazil function under different structural inertias as do those in the affluent North. 

The transition to a sustainable society is a process that is slow and dogged with technological, cultural, power and social locks  that forms a significant barrier to a more rapid sustainable transition.  For example, cities become 'locked in' to particular patterns of energy and resource use  constrained by existing infrastructural investments, sunk costs, institutional rigidities and vested interests.  City governance may inhibit or facilitate the effective transition to sustainability and informal activities and coalitions below official governance levels may contribute significantly to innovation but be difficult to explore.  It may also be difficult to ascertain the level to which the city environment has actually contributed to the innovation (Hobson and Marvin 2010). Networks within cities as well as between cities will therefore need to be explored.  Importantly, the identification of innovation that has emerged as a result of climate change.  Within the city, both  formal governance processes and the more informal processes and coalitions that form through the intensity of city life will need to be explored. This can be done on a cross sectoral basis.  Multiple cities will need to be identified on an international basis that can be explored comparatively.  This will involve and exploration of what has been termed the socio technical landscapes or socio technical regimes (Smith et al 2010).  These observations can be integrated with a broader analysis of the construction of innovation drivers.  In sum this approach will provide an innovative framework and new perspectives on the ability of cities embedded in global networks to facilitate socio technical transitions towards sustainability.

This new perspective may have  a significant impact at the city level.  It will allow city government to more effectively understand the barriers to  adaptation to climate change.  It will also allow a broad range of organisations and groups to understand their role in the process of socio technological change. An evolving perspective and departure from two dimensional representations of city spaces is urgently needed. Recent estimates have suggested that 80 per cent of the US$80-100 billion per year climate change adaptation costs are to be borne by urban areas (ICLEI 2011).

References

Beck, U., (1999) The World Risk Society, Cambridge, Polity Press

Borne, G., (forthcoming) (2012) Governance in Transition: Sustainable Development at the Local Level in a Global Context, Lampeter, Edwin Mellen Press

Borne, G., (2010b) Sustainable Global Development and Effective Governance of Risk, Lampeter, Edwin Mellen Press

Borne, G., (2009) Understanding Town and Parish Council Needs for a Sustainable Cornwall, Promoting Sustainable Communities, 1(2) http://uplace.org.uk:8080/dspace/bitstream/handle/10293/100/PromotingSustainableCommunities1(2).pdf?sequence=2 accessed 09/09/09

Borne, G., (2010a) Promoting Sustainable Communities in Devon and Cornwall: Education and Training, Promoting Sustainable Communities 2(1) http://uplace.org.uk:8080/dspace/bitstream/handle/10293/348/PromotingSustainableCommunities3.pdf?sequence=2

Castells, M., (1989) The Informational City information technology economic restructuring and Urban Development, Oxford, Blackwell

Coenen, L., Benneworth, P. And and Truffer, B.  Towards a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions Paper presented at the DIME Final Conference, 6-8 April 2011, Maastricht http://final.dime-eu.org/files/coenen_benneworth,_truffer_B5.pdf

Geels, F.W. (2010a) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495-510.

Geels, F.W. and Schot, J.W., (2010b), 'The dynamics of transitions: A socio-technical perspective' in: Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J. in collaboration with Geels, F.W. and Loorbach, D., 2010, Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, Routledge

Geels, F.W., (2010c)  'The role of the cities in technological transitions: Analytical clarifications and historical examples', in: Bulkeley, H., Broto, V.C., Hodson, M. and Marvin, S. (eds.), Cities and Low Carbon Transitions, Taylor & Francis

Hulme, M., (2010) Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Hobson, M., and Marvin, S., (2010) Can Cities Shape socio technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Research Policy 39(4):477-485

ICLEI (2011) Financing the Resilient City. A Demand Driven Approach to   Development, Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change

http://iclei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Global/Publications/Report-Financing_Resilient_City-Final.pdf accessed 05/07/11

Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City  Princeton University Press

Smith, A., VoB, JP and Grin, J., (2010)  Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi Level Perspective and its challenges Research Policy 39(4):435-448

Taylor, P., (2004)  World City Network. A Global Urban Analysis, London Routledge

The most sustainable Olympic games 'EVER'

I am facinated by the Olympic Games.  As well as being the worlds leading sporting event, this years Olympics aims to be the most sustainable ever, but  what will the most sustainable Olympics 'ever' look like and what legacy will it leave for local communities in London? 

Well in search of an answer and as part of the LEAD network I was lucky enough to visit the site last year and explore multiple aspects of this complex event. Multiple aspects relating to sustainable development were examined, from the mamouth construction task, the largest in Europe, to local community perceptions of the games.  I spoke to members of local communities living on the boundaries of the Olympic site as well as members of the organising committee.  What was clear was the incredible divergance in perception of what a sustainable games might look like.  The following article is something i wrote that tries to understand what this might mean and possibly provide an initial framework understanding the sustainability of the games .

… to encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport and require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly. (IOC 2007:15)

The increasing evidence of humanity’s impact on the earth’s fragile ecosystem over the past four decades has given rise to the idea that future developmental patterns need to be conducted sustainably.  As the excerpt from the Olympic Charter illustrates sustainable development is a concept that has been embedded in the underlying principles of the Olympic Games.  This article will offer a perspective on a way of beginning to understand the impact of the Olympic Games and other events from an evolving sustainable development perspective.    The article begins by examining sustainable development and its relationship to the Olympics.  A brief evolution of the Olympic Games is presented and some of the milestone events that have catalysed the Olympics and sustainable development are outlined.  What is emphasised here are the variability of impacts of the games on their host city and ultimately nation.  Following this there is an outline of the innovative Olympic Games Global Impact Framework.  The article ultimately argues that in order for this framework to be developed and to create a truly sustainable Olympic games in 2012, a reflexive sustainable development perspective is needed.

Sustainable Development is now a mainstream idea throughout society. With this said the concept remains ambiguous, convoluted and constantly changing.  It is perhaps this quality, this constructive ambiguity that has facilitated its rapid rise on the political, social,  and the economic agenda expanding beyond its environmental origins.  Sustainable development has been catalysed in the past few years by its affiliation with global climate change and more specifically global warming.  The London 2012 Olympic bid has not only taken these issues into account, it has explicitly used the language of sustainability, no matter how vague and tenuous to present itself as the first sustainable Olympics.    London’s 2012 sustainability plan, ‘Towards a one planet 2012’ (2007) outlines an array of mechanisms and procedures for promoting a sustainable games.  This is built on the foundation of five underlying goals.  These include climate change, reducing waste, enhancing biodiversity, inclusion and healthy living.  The recognition of the interconnected dimensions is an important step in maximising the positive impacts of the games on the London as well as nationally.  Importantly, In order to monitor progress towards these targets the independent Commission for a Sustainable London has been established. The Commissions role is pivotol and the overall perspective that it takes on sustainable development will dictate its overall effectiveness.

As such, the following section will offer a particular perspective on sustainable development that can accommodate these  multiple and overlapping issues.  This is done by initially outlining the main events that have had the most significant impact on the relationship between the Olympics and sustainable development to date and are ultimately responsible the London’s Olympic bid.  This particularly charts the evolution of the emphasis of the games from urban renewal to environmental sustainability and ultimately sustainable development. Moreover, what becomes clear is that the impacts of any particular games are dependant on a great many interrelated variables. Each city has issues that are very unique with pre-existing conditions at the city, national and global level which effect overall impact. 

It is well documented that early Olympic bids focused very directly focused on the advantages of urban renewal (Essex and Chalkley 1998).  The Rome games of 1960 saw significant renewal that extended well beyond the initial construction of sporting facilities.  Tokyo in 1964 used the games to legitimise and strengthen an existing ten year renewal plan.  The games of the 1970’s highlighted the effect of external global pressures on the games in the wake of the oil shocks.  The following games witnessed varying levels of investment with multiple and variable outputs and impacts.  Importantly, it was the Soul games of 1988 that emphasises the need for increased environmental standards, especially in the areas of hygiene, air pollution, waste disposal and a significant effort to clean up the Han River.  It is no coincidence that these efforts directly followed the publication of the Bruntland Report, ‘Our Common Future’ by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.  It was here that the often quoted ‘official’ definition of sustainable development was coined.  Such events have served to raise awareness of environmental issues and embed sustainable development in the global consciousness.  The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or ‘Earth Summit’ has received the most visibility, particularly with reference to the publication of Agenda 21 which is considered by many as the blueprint for promoting sustainable development on a global basis.

The following years saw a number of initiatives that gradually raised the environment and sustainable development on the Olympic agenda. In 1994 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) entered into partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme. Following this the IOC established the Sport and Environment Commission in 1995 and in 1996 the IOC amended the Olympic charter to establish the environment as the third pillar of the Olympics. In 1999 the IOC adopted Agenda 21 at the third World Conference on Sport and the Environment at Rio.  The result of these activities was firmly evident in the Sydney 2000 Olympics which saw a convergence between the Olympic Games and the language of sustainable development, with environmental sustainability playing a prominent role in Sydney’s Olympic developments. There was  recognition by the IOC particularly of the emphasis placed on environmental and cooperation with groups such as Greenpeace.

With the above in mind there remains the continuing challenge of translating the rhetoric and the good intention of sustainability into tangible outputs.  Indeed, the translation of form into function is a common theme throughout sustainable development related debates. What is clear is that in order to fully understand the impacts of the games from a sustainable development perspective the negative as well as the positive effects need to be considered both directly and indirectly. This involves a shift away from a linear view of impacts, from initial bid and investment to tangible and intangible outputs and impacts.    For example, Harvey (1989) has argued that the result of interurban competition such as the bidding process for the games can produce socially wasteful investments which exacerbate rather than improve urban problems.  Essex and Chalkley (1998)  using the Soul games as an exemplar  point  out that  there was a concerted effort to hide the deprived areas of the city leading to claims that such mega events can actually heighten social tensions. Keating (1991) has suggested that the Olympic games provides advantages only to those with power vested interest and investment in the games infrastructure.  These can include property developers, construction companies, equipment suppliers as well as the commercial sponsors more broadly.  With reference to the London 2012 Olympics concerns have been raised over the potential monopoly of multinational corporations as event suppliers.  Controversy is already surrounding the potential Monopoly during the games by McDonalds and Coca Cola and the impact this will have on the sustainable image of the games. Many other issues a regularly evident in the media.

Recognising the complexity of the issues involved the IOC has attempted to expand its understanding of the impact of any one games, and strengthen the relationship between the Olympics and sustainable development.  A notable example of this is the commissioning by the IOC of the Olympic Games Global Impact Project Framework (OGGI) for the  2004 Athens games.

Tzarilas et. al. (2006) point out that the games impact is defined by the interrelation between the Olympic event and its context of realisation.  The framework fundamentally outlines two areas.  Firstly space, where the regional, national and global levels are considered.  The second is time; here analysis is based on a time scale from announcement of a city’s candidacy for the games until a period two years after the conclusion of the games.  This time scale is separated into the stages of conception, organisation, staging and closure.  Applying the OGGI to the 2004 Athens games Tzarilas et. al. (2006) suggest that this process acts as an important evaluative tool for assessment of the impact of the games and a significant move towards understanding how best to create a sustainable games.  The authors are however, aware of the limitations of such a tool and suggest developing and expanding its scope and application.  Any advancement on initial designs must be tempered with the practicalities of implementing and analysing an expanded model.  For example, the post games assessment should be considerably extended, but questions over who would be responsible for such an assessment beyond the two year period are raised.

What is suggested in this article is that this quantitative tool, as the authors suggest, should be expanded to include qualitative elements and broaden it's scope for accommodating unexpected impacts from the games.  This perspective displays strong synergies with the emerging perspective of reflexive sustainable development governance (Borne 2010). The notion of a reflexive sustainable development is a position that incorporates the various areas of sustainable development exposing complex, dynamic and nonlinear systems.  It is a term that combines two fundamental elements.  Firstly, reflect, which is the ability to respond to events and circumstances in a purposeful knowledge based way.  This is relatively straight forward and underpins the main stream of assessment and evaluative techniques that are in operation today, even from a sustainable development stand pint (Brandon and Lombardi 2005).  However, the second dimension of reflexivity, which is reflex, is the ability to make room in an assessment, evaluation and overall governance process that considers the unintended and unforeseen consequences of a particular event.

 It is fundamentally the ability to step back from an event and assess the positive and negative outcomes whilst reintegrating these observations back into the evaluative process and governance structures.  This form of evaluative process is important at all stages of the policy planning process yet lacks any form of coherent structure in the planning and implementation of so many events.  Adopting this flexible perspective is essential when considering the magnitude of such events as the Olympic Games and moves past a sterile and prescriptive vision of sustainable development which will only serve to create at best a misleading and at worst counterproductive assessment of actual impacts. 

This article has attempted to briefly highlight the way that sustainable development has been integrated into the underlying ethos of the Olympic games. It has outlined the relationship between some of the mile-stone international events and the convergence of the principles of the Olympic Games  and the ideas surrounding sustainable development.  Moreover, it has argued that the impact of the games and any major event or development should be viewed from a multidimensional perspective that underpins the notion of a sustainable development. Building on this it is also argued that whilst there is already progress towards this perspective more should be done to encourage a sustainable development from a reflexive standpoint.  Ultimately, the Olympic Games is a celebration of the enduring strength of the human spirit and human ingenuity.  Sustainable development could be understood as highlighting the limits and destructive nature of human ingenuity.  However, it is also seen as a guiding concept to redirect human ingenuity as it faces new challenges.  Promoting the principles of sustainable development at the 2012 Olympic games exemplifies the ability of humanity to rise to these challenges.

Source

Borne, G., ‘An Evolving Sustainable Development Perspective: The Olympic Games, Journal of Environmental Science, November 22-25

Reference

Borne, G., (2010) Sustainable Global Development and the effective Governance of Risk.  Lampeter, Edwin Mellen

Brandon, S., and Lombardi., P., (2005) Evaluating Sustainable Development In the Built Environment Blackwell Publishing

Essex, S., and Chalkley, B., (1998) Olympic Games: Catalyst of Urban Change, Leisure Studies 17: 187-206

Harvey, D. (1989) The Urban Experience, Blackwell, Oxford

International Olympic Committee (2007) The Olympic Charter http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf accessed 01/06/09

Keating, M. (1991) Bad sports, Geographical Magazine, 63(12):26–29.

London 2012 (2007), ‘Towards a One Planet 2012’ http://www.london2012.com/documents/locog-publications/london-2012-sustainability-plan.pdf accessed 01/06/09

Tziralis, G., Tolis, A., Tatsiopoulos, I and Aravossis, K., (2006) Economic Aspects and Sustanability Impact of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment  98:21-33

 An Evolving Sustainable Development Perspective: The Olympic Games