Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Developing Knowledge-Intensive Low Carbon Transitions. Contexts, Challenges and Consequences Simon Marvin and Beth Perry http://www.surf.salford.ac.uk “Cities of Tomorrow” Workshop 1: Urban Challenges European Commission, DG Regional Policy Tuesday 29th June 2010 SURF’s Work Urban and Regional Governance Urban Knowledge Exchange Urban Ecological Security Cities of Tomorrow Urban Transitions Knowledge Regions and Cities Low Carbon Urban Futures The Future of Universities 2 Argument • Contexts: – Knowledge and Sustainability in Multi-Scalar, MultiActor Environments • Challenges: – Eg.Greater Manchester’s Attempts to Build LowCarbon Knowledge Economies • Consequences: – Knowledge for Sustainability: Populating the ‘Missing Middle’ 3 A Framework of Understanding Knowledge Economy and Technological Change + Climate Change and Resource Constraint + Globalisation and (Sub)Regionalisation Urban Paradigms Economic, Scientific, Socio-Cultural, Ecological and Political Rationales Models of National (Knowledge) Capitalism + Governance Systems + Research Systems Urban Potentials Choices, Capacities and Capabilities Transition Journeys + Emerging Priorities + Turning Points Urban Policies Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Approaches 4 Manchester: Low Carbon Economic Positioning • Positioning Manchester as low carbon first mover – To avoid the economic costs of inaction on climate change and to move rapidly to accrue the economic opportunities and benefits – To maintain a perceived view of Manchester as entrepreneurially pre-eminent as viewed by comparator cities and national government • Attracting investment and providing business support – The provision of relevant forms of support in relation to this agenda for businesses – The promotion of inward investment • A test-bed for national targets – GM Dec 2009 UK’s 4th LCEA & 1st LCEA for Built Environment – Draft prospectus claims - contribute to saving 6 million tn CO2 - support 34,800 jobs & exemplar for region & UK – Designation requires GM work with BIS, DECC, Carbon Trust, EST, NWDA etc – Position GM to attract investment – and showcase the achievement of national targets 5 Manchester’s Knowledge/Innovation Journey •Co-evolution and multi-level interactions •Broad visions, traditional interpretations •First-mover status; test-bed and pilot for new models •Glocal aspirations: excellence, relevance •Assumptions about knowledge, innovation, space and scale 6 An (E)Merging Agenda? Some overlaps: • ‘Innovation’; ‘scale’; ‘multiarena partnerships’ • E.g. IIF: carbon co-op, proposal for low carbon economic area, smart city and ‘living labs’ • E.g. Low Carbon Economic Area for Built Environment – inc. ‘low carbon laboratory’ • Conceptualisation of cities as sites of experimentation But similarities are greater in the framing of the issues than in an exploration of synergies and possibilities Knowledge economy / low carbon economy as ‘economic’ opportunity 7 Styles of Response Table 1 Dominant Responses Feature Econo-centric Objectives Tangible Measurements Global excellence Scales Linear, products, supply/demand, push/pull models Narrow; codified disciplinary; Technological, solutions Varied Intangible Glocal ‘excellent relevance’ and ‘relevant excellence’ Ecosystems, flows networks and sectoral; Knowledges Broad; interdisciplinary; crosssectoral; tacit mechanistic Mechanisms Multiple interventions mechanisms Transferable models Elites: corporate, governments, major institutions Divisible Processes Alternative Responses Learning Social Interests Concepts of Economic and Ecological Security and Context-sensitive approaches Wide stakeholders, potential beneficiaries and participants Collective 8 Gaps in Understanding: A ‘Missing Middle’ • • • • • • • ‘Missing Middle’ between expectations, capacities and capability Devolution of responsibility without resource Social processes characterised by ‘making do or improvisation’. Research resources used to inform standalone evaluation rather than city-regional learning. Poor communication amongst stakeholders about knowledge needs leads to inefficient use of resources. Weak mechanisms for mediating between stakeholders and HEIs in understanding how needs and responses could be mutually constructed An absence of a space for thinking without consequence to develop, test and critique ideas and policies in a structured and systematic way 9 Challenges • Configuring discourses and visions? • Assumptions and presumptions? • Cities as passive or active, receiving or mediating sites of activity? • Local experiments, upscaling and managed systemic transitions? • Actors involved, how positioned, coalitions of power and interest? • Capacities and capabilities of different cities to respond? • Social and material consequences of transitions? • Where is the space for alternatives to be discussed, conceived and implemented, by whom and with what effects? • What knowledge is needed and how to inform more sustainable knowledge-based futures? 10