No abstract

Urban Living Labs (ULL) are advanced as an explicit form of intervention delivering sustainability goals for cities. Established at the boundaries between research, innovation and policy, ULL are intended to design, demonstrate and learn about the effects of urban interventions in real time. While rapidly growing as an empirical phenomenon, our understanding of the nature and purpose of ULL is still evolving. While much of the existing literature draws attention to the aims and workings of ULL, there have to date been fewer critical accounts that seek to understand their purpose and implications. In this paper, we suggest that transition studies and the literature on urban governance offer important insights that can enable us to address this gap.

The term 'ecological security'is usually used in relation to attempts to safeguard flows of ecological resources, infrastructure and services at the national scale. But increasing concerns over 'urban ecological security' (UES) are now giving rise to strategies to reconfigure cities and their infrastructures in ways that help to secure their ecological and material reproduction. Yet cities have differing capacities and capabilities for developing strategic responses to the opportunities and constraints of key UES concerns. These include resource constraints and climate change, and consequently these newly emerging strategies may selectively privilege particular urban areas and particular social interests over others. In this article, we focus on world cities and outline the challenges posed by the growing concern for UES. We review the emerging responses that may increasingly form a new dominant 'logic' of infrastructure provision, which we characterize as Secure Urbanism and Resilient Infrastructure (SURI). We conclude by addressing the extent to which this new dominant 'logic' underpins a new strategy of accumulation or more 'progressive' politics by outlining alternatives to SURI, possibilities for shaping SURI more 'progressively' and developing an agenda for future research.

No abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Increasingly at the scale of cities strategies and plans to respond to the challenges of climate change and constrained resources are being developed. A range of climate change plans, low carbon strategies, peak oil preparations and so on have been developed, often with ambitious aspirations. At the same time new and reconstituted 'intermediary' organisational forms are working between the priorities of these plans and the contexts of their 'application'. This is the movement between the 'what' of the plans, strategies and preparations and the priorities they embody and the 'how' of attempts at their accomplishment. Drawing on research in Greater Manchester, in this paper we examine the organisational contexts constituted for such a purpose and ask fundamental questions about whose priorities are being advocated, where and how this is organised and what the implications of this are for forms of urban transition.2

Making a low carbon economic future for the UK has been declared a key priority by both the previous Labour government and also the current coalition government. Yet there is a large gap between the symbolic representations of a low carbon future and their material manifestations in low carbon technologies and infrastructure in particular places. This paper addresses this gap through focusing on the organisation of urban low carbon transition activity. There is often significant capacity to act in reconfiguring urban energy systems that remains latent due to a missing organisational context for its co-ordination according to a mutually defined rationale or vision. This paper develops a conceptual framework to demonstrate and understand different modes of urban energy intermediation. Examples are used of intermediary organisation in London and Manchester to understand the strengths and partiality of each mode of intermediation and the necessity to integrate these different aspects of urban intermediary governance.

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.