Part II - Beyond Experiments
Transforming Climate Governance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Summary
Climate change poses new, intricate challenges for public authorities. They have to develop and adjust policies in order to adapt to these changing conditions. To do so, novel ideas and innovative approaches are developed and tested in pilot projects. Such projects are often acknowledged as a relatively easy manner to explore new pathways to deal with climate change consequences. They are usually organized at the boundaries or even outside the dominant policy regime.
We explore, with help of a comparative case study of six climate adaptation pilots in the Netherlands the existence of a ‘pilot paradox’. This paradox states that the conditions that are necessary to give a pilot room to experiment and to learn also seem to constitute the main barriers to the translation of its results into changes in policy. Pilot results are often misaligned with prevailing policy paradigms and, because of the distance between the pilot and the mother organizations, the latter are ill-prepared to receive pilot results.
We can conclude that designing impactful experiments is only possible when actors recognize the pilot paradox. Within the pilot design, attention must be paid to issues of external representativeness and boundary spanning between the niche and the regime.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 121 - 241Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., and Zangl, B. (eds.) (2015). International Organizations as Orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139979696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anguelovski, I., and Carmin, J. (2011). Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 169–175.10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C. K., and Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of Experimentalism. Ecological Economics, 130, 64–73. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2475844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beisheim, M., and Simon, N. (August 2015). Meta-governance of partnerships for sustainable development: Actors’ perspectives on how the UN could improve partnerships’ governance services in areas of limited statehood. Berlin: SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, No. 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A., Raven, R., Lebel, C., and Bai, X. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: Innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 261–271.10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettini, Y., Brown, R., and de Haan, F. J. (2015). Exploring institutional adaptive capacity in practice: Examining water governance adaptation in Australia. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07291–200147.CrossRefGoogle 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(7), 1340–1353.10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006CrossRefGoogle 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), 361–375.10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H. A., and Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22, 136–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burch, S., Shaw, A., Dale, A., and Robinson, J. (2014). Triggering transformative change: A development path approach to climate change response in communities. Climate Policy, 14(4), 467–487. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2014.876342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G., Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. (2015). Bringing governments back in: Governance and governing in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(4), 311–321. doi: 10.1080/13876988.2015.1031977.Google Scholar
Castán Broto, V., and Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, S., Falkner, R., van Asselt, H., and Goldberg, M. (2015). Strengthening non-state climate action: A progress assessment of commitments launched at the 2014 UN Climate Summit. Centre for Climate Change Economics Policy, Working Paper No. 242. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Working Paper No. 216.Google Scholar
Chapin, S. F. III, Carpenter, S. R., Kofinas, G. P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W. C., Olsson, P., Stafford Smith, D. M., Walker, B., Young, O. R., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J. M., Naylor, R. L., Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W., and Swanson, F. J. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(4), 241–249.10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., Olazabal, M., and Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment & Urbanization, 27(1), 181–198.10.1177/0956247814550780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., Chapin, F. S. III, and Holling, C. S. (2012). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology. doi:10.1007/s10980-012–9725-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elzen, B., Leeuwis, C., and van Mierlo, B. (2008). Anchorage of Innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to use the greenhouse effect as an energy source. Working Paper. Wageningen: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Evans, J. (2016). Trials and tribulations: Problematizing the city through/as urban experimentation. Geography Compass, 10(10), 429–443.10.1111/gec3.12280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrelly, M., and Brown, R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 721–732.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., and Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473.10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., and Meadowcroft, J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., and Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realizing’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, R., Jarvie, J., Orleans Reed, S., Sutarto, R., Thinphanga, P., Canh Toan, V. (2014). Mainstreaming urban climate resilience into policy and planning; reflections from Asia. Urban Climate, 7, 6–19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., and Folke, C. (2012). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries: Emerging governance of climate change – ocean acidification – marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 21–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemeente Rotterdam (2007). Waterplan 2: Werken an water voor een aantrekkelijke en klimaatbestendige stad. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Gemeente Rotterdam (2012). Programma Duurzaam, Investeren in duuzaame groei. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Gemeente Rotterdam (2015). Duurzaam dichter bij de Rotterdammer; Programma Duurzaam 2015–2018. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Gemeente Rotterdam (2016). Rotterdam resilience strategy: Ready for the 21st century. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. http://lghttp.60358.nexcesscdn.net/8046264/images/page/-/100rc/pdfs/strategy-resilient-rotterdam.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016.Google Scholar
Gupta, J., Termeer, C. J. A. M., Klostermann, J. E. M., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M. A., Jong, P., Nooteboom, S. G., Bergsma, E. J. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13:459–471.10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2010). Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Research Policy, 39, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., and Bulkeley, H. (2013). The intermediary organisation of low carbon cities: A comparative analysis of transitions in Greater London and Greater Manchester. Urban Studies, 50, 1403–1422.10.1177/0042098013480967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5. Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.10.1111/1468-2451.00107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (2011). Metagovernance. In Bevir, M. (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Governance. London: Sage, 106–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhagroe, S. (2016). Urban transition politics: How struggles for sustainability are (re)making urban spaces. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Karvonen, A., Evans, J. P., and van Heur, B. (2014). The politics of urban experiments: Radical change or business as usual? In Marvin, S., and Hodson, M. (eds.), After Sustainable Cities. London: Routledge, 105–114.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., and Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance: A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169: 17–29.10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klijn, E., and Edelenbos, J. (2007). Metagovernance as network management. In Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooiman, J., and Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-Governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836.10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01780.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(1), 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loorbach, D. (2014). To Transition! Governance Panarchy in the New Transformation. Inaugural Lecture. Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Loorbach, D., and Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42(3), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., and Huffenreuter, L. R. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 48–66.10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2015.ju.00008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D. J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., Burch, S., Davies, A., Evans, J., König, A., Farrelly, M. A., Forrest, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Gibson, R. B., Kay, B., Loorbach, D., McCormick, K., Parodi, O., Rauschmayer, F., Schneidewind, U., Stauffacher, M., Stelzer, F., Trencher, G., Venjakob, J., Vergragt, P. J., von Wehrden, H., and Westley, F. R. (2016). Learning through evaluation. A tentative evaluation scheme for sustainability transition experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, N. A., Park, S. E., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., and Howden, S. M. (2012). Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., and Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1–11.10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, A., Dircke, P., and Gebraad, C. (2013). Rotterdam. In Molenaar, A., Aerts, J., Dircke, P., and Ikert, M. (eds.), Connecting Delta Cities: Resilient Cities and Climate Adaptation Strategies. Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam, 30–51.Google Scholar
Moore, M.-L., and Westley, F. (2011). Surmountable chasms: Networks and Social innovation for resilient systems. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 5. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art5/10.5751/ES-03812-160105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M.-L., Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., and Holroyd, C. (2011). The loop, the lens and the lesson: Using resilience theory to examine public policy and social innovation. In Nicholls, A., and Murdock, A. (eds.), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 320.Google Scholar
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., and Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Galaz, V., and Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society 19(4), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., and Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art1810.5751/ES-01595-110118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C., Becker, G., Knieper, C., and Sendzimir, J. (2013). How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: A comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05779-180458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., and Schäpke, N. (2015). Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions: Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecological Economics, 109, 211–221.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, R., van den Bosch, S., and Weterings, R. (2010). Transitions and strategic niche management: Towards a competence kit for practitioners. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 57–74.10.1504/IJTM.2010.033128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijke, J., Farrelly, M., Brown, R., and Zevenbergen, C. (2013). Configuring transformative governance to enhance resilient urban water systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 25(2013), 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero Lankao, P., and Dodman, D. (2011). Cities in transition: Transforming urban centers from hotbeds of GHG emissions and vulnerability to seedbeds of sustainability and resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W. D., Hammer, S. A., and Mehrotra, S. (eds.) (2011). Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511783142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotmans, J., and Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: A systemic and reflexive approach. In Grin, J., Rotmans, J., and Schot, J. (eds.), Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. New York: Routledge, 105–220.Google Scholar
Rotterdam Climate Initiative (2007). Action programme and objectives 2007–2010. Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Rotterdam Climate Initiative (2009). Rotterdam climate proof: The Rotterdam challenge on water and climate adaptation. 2009 adaptation programme. Rotterdam. Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam. www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjT0Z71xYXRAhXROlAKHY6eAwIQFgg4MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl%2Fdocuments%2F2015-en-ouder%2FRCP%2FEnglish%2FRCP_adaptatie_eng.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFWDPhuaDUNGD_W_o3LCMxp8laeOg. Accessed 10 June 2016.Google Scholar
Rotterdam Climate Initiative (2012). Rotterdam climate change adaptation strategy. Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam. www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2015-en-ouder/Documenten/20121210_RAS_EN_lr_versie_4.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2016.Google Scholar
Scourfield, P. (2015). Implementing co-production in adult social care: An example of meta-governance failure? Social Policy and Society, 14(4), 541–554. doi: 10.1017/S1474746414000438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sengers, F., and Raven, R. (2015). Towards a spatial perspective on niche development: The case of Bus Rapid Transit. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 166–182.10.1016/j.eist.2014.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfang, G., and Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J., and Dale, A. (2014). Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A., and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 7, 41(6). doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114. doi: 10.1177/0275074005282584.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E. (16–17 September 2014). The metagovernance of public innovation in governance networks. Paper presented at Policy and Politics conference, Bristol.Google Scholar
Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.10.1111/1468-2451.00106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vabo, S. I., and Røiseland, A. (2012). Conceptualizing the tools of government in urban network governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(14), 934–946. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2012.691243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Buuren, A., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Policy innovation in isolation? Conditions for policy renewal by transition arenas and pilot projects. Public Management Review, 11(3), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., and Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 12.10.5751/ES-02824-140112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 30.10.5751/ES-07489-200230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., and Bodin, Ö. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 27. doi:10.5751/ES-05072–180327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S., Pearson, L. J., Kashima, Y., Lusher, D., and Pearson, C. (2013). Separating adaptive maintenance (resilience) and transformative capacity of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05100–180122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittmayer, J., Van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D., Mock, M,. Omann, I., and Kirner, B. (2014). Exploring the transformative potential of communities. In Wittmayer, J., Roorda, C., and Van Steenbergen, F. (eds.), Governing Urban Sustainability Transitions – Inspiring examples. Rotterdam: DRIFT, Creative Commons, 83–89.Google Scholar
Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities, 51, 121–130. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, W., and Spaans, M. (2014). Meta-governance and developing integrated territorial strategies: The case study of MIRT territorial agendas in the Randstad (Netherlands). Planning Theory & Practice, 15(4), 543–562.10.1080/14649357.2014.963379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Banks, G. (February 2009). Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it? How do we get it? ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG, Canberra.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, H., and During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1–3), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R., and Farrelly, M. A. (2013). A design framework for creating social learning situations. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breman, B. C., de Groot, M., Ottow, B., and Rip, W. (2014). Monitoren doe je samen. De meerwaarde van participatieve monitoring. H2O Online, 20 (6), 1–9.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), 295–302.10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagerskog, L., Savadogo, K., Hamadou, K., and Vodounhessi, A. (2016). Productive sanitation in Burkina Faso and Niger – going beyond projects? Paper presented at the 5th International Dry Toilet Conference, Tampere, Finland, 19 August 2015–22 August 2015.Google Scholar
De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., and Martens, L. (2010). User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology analysis. Science and Public Policy, 37(1), 51–61.10.3152/030234210X484775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, G. J., and Ottow, B. T. (2012). Maatschappelijke aspecten van flexibel peilbeheer. Utrecht: Deltares.Google Scholar
Eshuis, J., and van Buuren, A. (2014). Innovations in water governance: The importance of time. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 401–420.10.1177/0020852313514518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatimah, Y. A., Raven, R. P., and Arora, S. (2015). Scripts in transition: Protective spaces of Indonesian biofuel villages. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, N., and Von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7), 1199–1215.10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00049-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freude am Fluss (2007). Freude am Fluss. An Innovative Approach to River Management. Beuningen, the Netherlands: Drukkerij Libertas.Google Scholar
Gearheart, R. A., Klopp, F., and Allen, G. (1989). Constructed free surface wetlands to treat and receive wastewater: Pilot project to full scale. In Hammer, D. A. (ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 121–138.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. B., and Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.10.2307/3094872CrossRefGoogle 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
Hoppe, R. (2009). Scientific advice and public policy: Expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work. Poiesis & Praxis, 6(3–4), 235–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, J., Maye, D., Kirwan, J., Curry, N., and Kubinakova, K. (2015). Interactions between niche and regime: An analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(1), 55–71.10.1080/1389224X.2014.991114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, R., and Rotmans, J. (2009). Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 303–322.10.1007/s11077-009-9105-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., and Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance: A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29.10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, J. N., Jensen, J. N., Vilhelmsen, P. J., and Biede, O. (2009). Experience with CO2 capture from coal flue gas in pilot-scale: Testing of different amine solvents. Energy Procedia, 1(1), 783–790.10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kylefors, K., Andreas, L., and Lagerkvist, A. (2003). A comparison of small-scale, pilot-scale and large-scale tests for predicting leaching behaviour of landfilled wastes. Waste Management, 23(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuindersma, W., and Breman, B. C. (2014). Leren van landbouw op peil. Evaluatie van een experiment met zelfsturing in het waterbeheer. Alterra report 2512.Google Scholar
Lettl, C. (2007). User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1), 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, P. J., and Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.10.1111/psj.12024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muro, M., and Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344.10.1080/09640560801977190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muro, M., and Jeffrey, P. (2012). Time to talk? How the structure of dialog processes shapes stakeholder learning in participatory water resources management. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 3.10.5751/ES-04476-170103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, S., and Howlett, M. (2015). Scaling up of policy experiments and pilots: A qualitative comparative analysis and lessons for the water sector. Water Resources Management, 29(14), 4945–4961. doi: 10.1007/s11269-015-1081-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutley, S., Davies, H., and Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. Working Paper, 9. London: ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, University of London.Google Scholar
Nutley, S. M., Davies, H. T., and Smith, P. C. (2000). What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B. W. E., Kater, E., and Geerling, G. W. (2006). Cyclisch beheer in uiterwaarden: Natuur en veiligheid in de praktijk. Nijmegen: Centrum voor Water en Samenleving, Radboud Universiteit.Google Scholar
Rotmans, J., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22.10.1111/1467-9299.00292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., and Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 16(4), 309–326.10.1080/08941920390178874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smink, M., Negro, S. O., Niesten, E., and Hekkert, M. P. (2015). How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A., Kern, F., Raven, R., and Verhees, B. (2014). Spaces for sustainable innovation: Solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 115–130.10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A., and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Van Buuren, A., Keessen, A. M., Van Leeuwen, C., Eshuis, J., and Ellen, G. J. (2015a). Implementation arrangements for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: Characteristics and underlying mechanisms of adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 11.10.5751/ES-07704-200411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Buuren, M. W., Ellen, G. J., van Leeuwen, C., and van Popering-Verkerk, J. (2015b). Die het water deert die het water keer: overstromingsrisicobeheer als maatschappelijke gebiedsopgave, opbrengsten en lessen uit de pilots meerlaagsveiligheid. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Van Buuren, M. W., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Policy innovation in isolation? Conditions for policy renewal by transition arenas and pilot projects. Public Management Review, 11(3), 375–392.10.1080/14719030902798289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bosch, S. J. M. (2010). Transition experiments: Exploring societal changes towards sustainability. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Van Popering-Verkerk, J., and van Buuren, M.W. (2017). Developing collaborative capacity in pilot projects: Lessons from three Dutch flood risk management experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Kuks, S. M. M., and Augustijn, D. C. M. (2015). Governance in support of integrated flood risk management? The case of Romania. Journal of Environmental Development, 16, 104–118.10.1016/j.envdev.2015.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H., Slinger, J., Thissen, W., and Ker Rault, P. (2010). Pilot projects in water management. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 13.10.5751/ES-03357-150313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H., Taljaard, S., and Slinger, J. H. (2012). Pilot projects and their diffusion: A case study of integrated coastal management in South Africa. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1–2), 148–172.10.1504/IJSD.2012.044039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H. S. I. (2010). Pilot projects in water management: Practicing change and changing practice. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.10.1111/1467-9299.00296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Beland, D. (2007). Ideas and institutional change in social security: Conversion, layering, and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88 (1), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabinet Office (2003). Trying it out: The role of ‘pilots’ in policy-making. In Report of a Review of Government Pilots. London: Strategy Unit, Government of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Cashore, B., and Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 532–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, L., Olhoff, A., and Trærup, S. (eds.) (2011). Technologies for adaptation: Perspectives and practical experiences. Roskilde: UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) Risø Centre.Google Scholar
Deyle, R. E. (1994). Conflict, uncertainty, and the role of planning and analysis in public policy innovation. Policy Studies Journal, 22(3), 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, S. (2004). Scaling Up Community-Driven Development: A Synthesis of Experience. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400842995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GoI (Government of India) (2007). Report of the Working Group on Risk Management in Agriculture for XI Five Year Plan (2007– 2012). New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.Google Scholar
GoI (2011). Report of the XII Plan Working Group on Natural Resource Management and Rainfed Farming. New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, A., and Linn, J. F. (2007). Scaling Up: A Path to Effective Development. In 2020 Focus Brief on the World’s Poor and Hungry People. Washington, DC: IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute)Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195390087.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M., and Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46. http://doi.org/10.1080/13876980802648144Google Scholar
Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.10.17645/pag.v1i2.95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014). Innovations in climate policy: Conclusions and new directions. Environmental Politics. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2014.924209. 906-925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, R. (2008). Using fsQCA: A Brief Guide and Workshop for Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. United Kingdom: University of Stirling.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwadijk, J. C. J., Haasnoot, M., Mulder, J. P. M., Hoogvliet, M. M. C., Jeuken, A. B. M., et al. (2010). Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: A case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 1(5), 725–740.10.1002/wcc.64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legewie, N. (2013). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Qualitative Social Research, 14(3). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1303154. Accessed on 23 February, 2016.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (1991). Cross-national sources of regulatory policymaking in Europe and the United States. Journal of Public Policy, 11, 79-106.10.1017/S0143814X00004943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, K., Pelling, M., Patwardhan, A., Hallegatte, S., Maskrey, A., Oki, T., Oswald-Spring, U., Wilbanks, T., and Yanda, P. Z. (2012). Toward a sustainable and resilient future. In Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken, D. J., Ebi, K. L., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M. (eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 437–486.10.1017/CBO9781139177245.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., and Hanson, C. E. (eds.) (2007). Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis 14, 291–310.10.1093/pan/mpj019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. (2007). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C. (eds.), Configurational Comparative Analysis. Berkeley, CA: Sage Publications, 87–121.Google Scholar
Rip, A., and Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In Rayner, S., and Malone, L. (eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change. Vol. 2. Resources and Technology. Washington, DC: Batelle Press, 327–399.Google Scholar
Rondinelli, D. (1993). Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An Adaptive Approach to Development Administration. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. Q., and Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C. Q., and Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 559–597. http://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113481341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, R., Fajans, P., and Ghiron, L. (eds.) (2007). Scaling Up Health Service Delivery: From Pilot Innovations to Policies and Programmes. New York: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Swanson, D., and Bhadwal, S. (eds.) (2009). Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide for Policymaking in an Uncertain World. New Delhi: Sage Publications, IDRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In Mahoney, J., and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 208–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H., Frantzeskaki, N., Taljaard, S., Ker Rault, P., and Slinger, J. (6–8 April 2009). The next step in policy transitions: Diffusion of pilot projects. 13th Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.Google Scholar
Vreugdenhil, H., Taljaard, S., and Slinger, J. H. (2012). Pilot projects and their diffusion: A case study of integrated coastal management in South Africa. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1–2), 148–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, C. (1975). Evaluation research in the political context. In Struening, E. L., and Guttentag, M. (eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 13–26.Google Scholar
Wilder, M., and Howlett, M. (2014). The politics of policy anomalies: Bricolage and the hermeneutics of paradigms. Critical Policy Studies, 8(2), 183–202. http://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2014.901175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1178–1193.10.1177/01708406030247009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blamey, A., and Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), 439–455.10.1177/1356389007082129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blok, A. (2013). Urban green assemblages. Science & Technology Studies, 26(1), 5–24.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
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001). From programme theory to constructivism on tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation, 7(3), 331–349.10.1177/13563890122209711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahler-Larsen, P., and Schwandt, T. A. (2012). Political culture as context for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(135), 75–87.10.1002/ev.20028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O., and Sabel, C. (2014). Global experimentalist governance. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 477–486.10.1017/S0007123414000076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Schutter, O. (2010). The role of evaluation in experimentalist governance: Learning by monitoring in the establishment of the area of freedom, security, and justice. In Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (eds.), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 261–296.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(2), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(2), 223–237.10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00420.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, V. J. (2001). Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 161–181.10.1177/109821400102200203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W., and Deuten, J. 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), 265–275.10.3152/147154306781778984CrossRefGoogle 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), 375–392.10.1080/09537320600777143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Programme (2015). Programme of Prime Minister Sipilä’s government. Accessed Oct 3rd 2017, http://valtioneuvosto.fi/sipilan-hallitus/hallitusohjelma?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk_languageId=en_USGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, T. (2011). What lessons get shared? Case studies of community energy. Grassroots innovation research briefing 9. Accessed Oct 3rd 2017, https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gi-9-cise-3rd-party-case-studies.pdfGoogle Scholar
Heiskanen, E., Jalas, M., Rinkinen, J., and Tainio, P. (2015). The local community as a ‘low-carbon lab’: Promises and perils. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 14, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertting, N., and Vedung, E. (2012). Purposes and criteria in network governance evaluation: How far does standard evaluation vocabulary takes us? Evaluation, 18(1), 27–46.10.1177/1356389011431021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2007). Cities mediating technological transitions: The adaptability of infrastructure and infrastructures of adaptability. International Handbook of Urban Policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 240–258.Google Scholar
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2009). Cities mediating technological transitions: Understanding visions, intermediation and consequences. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4), 515–534.10.1080/09537320902819213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford, Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195390087.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, J., Stauning, I., and Søndergård, B. (2011). Local climate mitigation and eco-efforts in housing and construction as transition places. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(3), 183–198.10.1002/eet.569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogma, R., Weber, M., and Elzen, B. (2005). Integrated long-term strategies to induce regime shifts towards sustainability: The approach of strategic niche management. In Weber, M. and Hemmelskamp, J. (Eds.) Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 209–236.10.1007/3-540-27298-4_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., and Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014). Innovations in climate policy: The politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 715–734.10.1080/09644016.2014.923614CrossRefGoogle 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), 175–198.10.1080/09537329808524310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., and Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance – a systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29.10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickwitz, P., Hildén, M., Seppälä, J., and Melanen, M. (2011). Sustainability through system transformation: Lessons from Finnish efforts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1779–1787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, G. (2014). Innovation in the Public Sector: How Can Public Organisations better Create, Improve and Adapt? London: Nesta.Google Scholar
Naess, P., and Vogel, N. (2012). Sustainable urban development and the multi-level transition perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 36–50.10.1016/j.eist.2012.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdevest, C., Bleicher, A., and Gross, M. (2010). The experimental turn in environmental sociology: Pragmatism and new forms of governance. In Gross, M. and Heinrichs, H. (Eds.). Environmental Sociology. The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 279–294.10.1007/978-90-481-8730-0_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, W., and Raman, S. (2014). The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: Challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sciences, 47(4), 387–402.10.1007/s11077-014-9208-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quitzau, M.-B., Hoffmann, B., and Elle, M. (2012). Local niche planning and its strategic implications for implementation of energy efficient technology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1049–1058.10.1016/j.techfore.2011.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, R., Kern, F., Smith, A., Jacobsson, S., and Verhees, B. (2016). The politics of innovation spaces for low-carbon energy: Introduction to the special issue. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 101–110.10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, R. P., Heiskanen, E., Lovio, R., Hodson, M., and Brohmann, B. (2008). The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(6), 464–477.10.1177/0270467608317523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohracher, H. (2008). Energy systems in transition: Contributions from social sciences. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 9(2–3), 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327.CrossRefGoogle 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), 537–554.10.1080/09537320802292651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuer, A., Ornetzeder, M., and Rohracher, H. (2010). Negotiating the local embedding of socio-technical experiments: A case study in fuel cell technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22, 729–743.10.1080/09537325.2010.496286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Späth, P., and Rohracher, H. (2010). ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39, 449–458.10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedung, E. (1997). Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Vedung, E. (2006). Evaluation research. In Peters, B.G., and Pierre, J. (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. London, Sage Publications, 397-416.10.4135/9781848608054.n24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., and Schliwa, G. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54.10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Alexander, R., Hope, M., and Degg, M. (2007). Mainstreaming sustainable development – a case study: Ashton Hayes is going carbon neutral. Local Economy, 22, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, B., and McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and geography. Area, 43, 124–127.10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01004.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andres, L. (2013). Differential spaces, power hierarchy and collaborative planning: A critique of the role of temporary uses in shaping and making places. Urban Studies, 50, 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelouvski, I., and Carmin, J. (2011). Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 169–175.10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton Hayes Going Carbon Neutral (AHGCN) (2017). Ashton Hayes Going Carbon Neutral. Access 6 February 2017. www.goingcarbonneutral.co.ukGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. (1995). Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Bell, D., and Jayne, M. (eds.) (2004). City of Quarters: Urban Villages in the Contemporary City. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Benneworth, P., Charles, D., and Madanipour, A. (2010). Building localized interactions between universities and cities through university spatial development. European Planning Studies, 18, 1611–1629.10.1080/09654313.2010.504345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., and Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, N., Madden, D. J., and Wachsmuth, D. (2011). Assemblage urbanism and the challenges of critical urban theory. City, 15, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. S., and Vergragt, P. J. (2008). Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: The case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 107–130.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, 361–375.10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., and Edwards, G. A. S. (2015). An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-Technical Transitions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., and Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1934–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterton, P. (2013). Towards an agenda for post-carbon cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s first ecological, affordable cohousing community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 1654–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterton, P. (2016). Building transitions to post-capitalist urban commons. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K., and Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: Social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 358–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, A. (1994). Christiania: The Evolution of a Commune. Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History.Google Scholar
Coutard, O., and Rutherford, J. (2011). The rise of post-networked cities in Europe? Recombining infrastructural, ecological and urban transformations in low carbon transitions. In Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds.), Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge, 106–125.Google Scholar
Coutard, O., and Rutherford, J. (2016). Beyond the networked city: An introduction. In Coutard, O., and Rutherford, J. (eds.), Infrastructure Reconfigurations and Urban Change in the North and South. London: Routledge, 1–25.Google Scholar
Evans, J., Jones, R., Karvonen, A., Millard, L., and Wendler, J. (2015). Living labs and co-production: University campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J., and Karvonen, A. (2011). Living laboratories for sustainability: Exploring the politics and epistemology of urban transition. In Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds.), Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge, 126–141.Google Scholar
Evans, J., and Karvonen, A. (2014). ‘Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon footprint!’ – Urban laboratories and the pursuit of low carbon futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J., Karvonen, A., and Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban transformation. In Evans, J., Karvonen, A., and Raven, R. (eds.), The Experimental City. London: Routledge, 1–12.10.4324/9781315719825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farías, I. (2011). The politics of urban assemblages. City, 15, 365–374.10.1080/13604813.2011.595110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feola, G., and Nunes, R. (2014). Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: The case of the Transition Movement. Global Environmental Change, 24, 232–250.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.011CrossRefGoogle 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. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gleeson, B. (2012). ‘Make No Little Plans’: Anatomy of planning ambition and prospect. Geographical Research, 50, 242–255.10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00728.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopakumar, G. (2014). Experiments and counter-experiments in the urban laboratory of water-supply partnerships in India. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 393–412.10.1111/1468-2427.12076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S., and Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities, and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (2010a). The public proceduralization of contingency: Bruno Latour and the formation of collective experiments. Social Epistemology, 24, 63–74.10.1080/02691721003632826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. (2010b). Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological Design. London: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013482.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, O., LeCavalier, J., Calvillo, N., and Pietsch, W. (2013). Test-bed urbanism. Public Culture, 25, 271–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, E. (2015). Navigating pop-up geographies: Urban space–times of flexibility, interstitially and immersion. Geography Compass, 9, 592–603.10.1111/gec3.12248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195390087.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvonen, A. (2016). Low-carbon devices and desires in community housing retrofit. In Bulkeley, H., Stripple, J., and Patterson, M. (eds.), Towards a Cultural Politics of Climate Change: Devices, Desires and Dissent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 51–65.10.1017/CBO9781316694473.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvonen, A., Evans, J., and van Heur, B. (2014). The politics of urban experiments: Radical change or business as usual? In Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (eds.), After Sustainable Cities? London: Routledge, 104–115.Google Scholar
Karvonen, A., and van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kshetri, N., Alcantara, L. L., and Park, Y. (2014). Development of a smart city and its adoption and acceptance: The case of New Songdo. Communications & Strategies, 96, 113–145.Google Scholar
Kullman, K. (2013). Geographies of experiment/experimental geographies: A rough guide. Geography Compass, 7, 879–894.10.1111/gec3.12087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurent, B. (2011). Technologies of democracy: Experiments and demonstrations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 649–666.10.1007/s11948-011-9303-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, G. (1 February 2010). Cisco’s big bet on New Songdo: Creating cities from scratch. Fast Company Magazine. Accessed 6 February 2017, www.fastcompany.com/1514547/ciscos-big-bet- new-songdo-creating-cities-scratchGoogle Scholar
Marvin, S., and Silver, J. (2016). The urban laboratory and emerging sites of urban experimentation. In Evans, J., Karvonen, A., and Raven, R. (eds.), The Experimental City. London: Routledge, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, C. (2011a). The city as a machine for learning. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 360–376.10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00430.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, C. (2011b). The city as assemblage: Dwelling and urban space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 649–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (1999). Planning for sustainable development: What can be learned from the critics? In Kenny, M., and Meadowcroft, J. (eds.), Planning for Sustainability. London: Routledge, 12–38.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42, 323–340.10.1007/s11077-009-9097-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middlemiss, L., and Parrish, B. D. (2010). Building capacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy, 38, 7559–7566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. (2007). Urban Utopias: The Built and Social Architectures of Alternative Settlements. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203099124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, P. (ed.) (2003). Urban Villages and the Making of Communities. London: Taylor & Francis.10.4324/9780203402771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, B., and Rossiter, N. (2008). Precarity as a political concept, or, Fordism as exception. Theory, Culture & Society, 25, 51–72.10.1177/0263276408097796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Németh, J., and Langhorst, J. (2014). Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities, 40, 143–150.10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., and Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., and Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 58–78.10.1162/glep.2009.9.1.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickerill, J. (2016). Eco-Homes: People, Place and Politics. London: Zed Books.10.5040/9781350219809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickerill, J., and Maxey, L. (2009). Geographies of sustainability: Low impact developments and radical spaces of innovation. Geography Compass, 3, 1515–1539.10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00237.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures, 36(4), 423–439.10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reno, J. (2011). Managing the experience of evidence: England’s experimental waste technologies and their immodest witnesses. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36, 842–863.10.1177/0162243910376158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roodhouse, S. (2010). Cultural Quarters: Principles and Practice. Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14, 271–327.10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (eds.) (2010). Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80, 1–22.10.1111/1467-9299.00292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Silver, J. (2014). Incremental infrastructures: Material improvisation and social collaboration across post-colonial Accra. Urban Geography, 35, 788–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simone, A. M. (2013). Cities of uncertainty: Jakarta, the urban majority, and inventive political technologies. Theory, Culture & Society, 30, 243–263.10.1177/0263276413501872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Späth, P., and Rohracher, H. (2012). Local demonstrations for global transitions: Dynamics across governance levels fostering socio-technical regime change towards sustainability. European Planning Studies, 20, 461–479.10.1080/09654313.2012.651800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonkiss, F. (2013). Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City, 17, 312–324.10.1080/13604813.2013.795332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanolo, A. (2013). Alternative capitalism and creative economy: The case of Christiania. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 1785–1798.10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01167.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voytenko, Y, McCormick, K., Evans, J., and Schliwa, G. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54.10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2011). The role for ‘community’ in carbon governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 777–782.Google Scholar
References
Abbott, K. W. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 571–590. doi: 10.1068/c11127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abernathy, W. J., and Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A., Raven, R., Lebel, L., and Bai, X. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: Innovations shaping alternative development pathways? Environmental Science & Policy, 13(4), 261–271.10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Adresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P.M., Jordan, A., Kanie, N., Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Meadowcroft, J., Mitchell, R.B., Newell, P., Oberthür, S., Olsson, L., Pattberg, P., Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., Schroeder, H., Underdal, A., Camargo Vieira, S., Vogel, C., Young, O.R., Brock, A. and Zondervan, R. (2012). Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: Key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 51–60.10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.014CrossRefGoogle 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(7), 1340–1353. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. S., and Vergragt, P. J. (2008). Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: The case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(1), 107–130.10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L, Bäckstrand, K., Betsill, M., Compagnon, D., Duffy, R., Kolk, A., Hoffmann, M., Levy, D., Newell, P., Milledge, T., Paterson, M., Pattberg, P. and vanDeveer, S. (2012). Governing climate change transnationally: Assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 591–612.10.1068/c11126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabinet Office (2003). Trying it out: The role of ‘pilots’ in policy-making. In Report of a Review of Government Pilots.Google Scholar
Chan, S., van Asselt, H., Hale, T., Abbott, K.W., Beisheim, M., Hoffmann, M., Guy, B., Hohne, N., Hsu, A., Pattberg, P., Pauw, P., Ramstein, C. and Widerberg, O. (2015). Reinvigorating international climate policy: A comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6(4), 466–473.10.1111/1758-5899.12294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J., Karvonen, A., and Raven, R. (eds.) (2016). The Experimental City. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315719825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the institute of British Geographers, 36(2), 223–237.10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00420.xCrossRefGoogle 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. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F. W., and Deuten, J. 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), 265–275.10.3152/147154306781778984CrossRefGoogle 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.10.4324/9780203856598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, T., and Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9(1), 59–82.10.1007/s11558-013-9174-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, A., and Linn, J. (2009). Scaling up: A path to effective development. In von Braun, J., Vargas Hill, R., and Pandya-Lorch, R. (eds.), The Poorest and Hungry: Assessments, Analyses, and Actions. International Food Policy Research Institute, 449–558.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195390087.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly, S., Raven, R., and Romijn, H. (2012). Upscaling of business model experiments in off-grid PV solar energy in India. Sustainability Science, 7(2), 199–212. doi: 10.1007/s11625-012–0163-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–394.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., Hildén, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T.J., Schoenefeld, J.J., Tosun, J., Forster, J. and Boasson, E.L. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 977–982. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, R. P. M., Rip, A., and Schot, J. W. (2001). Constructing transition paths through the management of niches. In Garud, R., and Karnoe, P. (eds.), Path Dependence and Creation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 269–299.Google Scholar
Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43, 1370–1380.10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance: A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169: 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivimaa, P., and Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217.10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, S., Berg, A., and Annala, M. (2017). Dynamics of experimental governance: A meta-study of functions and uses of climate governance experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, S., and Howlett, M. (2016). Meaning and power in the design and development of policy experiments. Futures, 76, 67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.3.641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Simila, J. and Barton, D. (2013). Evolution in Finland’s Forest Biodiversity Conservation payments and the institutional constraints on establishing new policy. Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1137–1154. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.820814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, R., Van Den Bosch, S., and Weterings, R. (2010). Transitions and strategic niche management: Towards a competence kit for practitioners. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 57–74. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2010.033128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A., and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tassey, G. (2014). Innovation in innovation policy management: The Experimental Technology Incentives Program and the policy experiment. Science and Public Policy, 41(4), 419–424.10.1093/scipol/sct060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnheim, B., and Geels, F. W. (2012). Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy, 50, 35–49.10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upham, P., Kivimaa, P., Mickwitz, P., Astrand, K. (2014). Climate policy innovation: A sociotechnical transitions perspective. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 774–794.10.1080/09644016.2014.923632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlin, J. (2015). Extending Experimentalist Governance? The European Union and Transnational Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724506.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.