Experiments in climate governance – A systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions

Abstract

Experimentation has been proposed as a key way in which governance drives sustainability transitions, notably by creating space for innovative solutions to emerge. In seeking to bring greater coherence to the literatures on climate and sustainability governance experiments, this article reports on a systematic review of articles published between 2009 and 2015. Based on these results a new definition and typology of climate governance experiments is suggested. The typology distinguishes between the various purposes experiments can have, including niche creation, market creation, spatial development, and societal problem solving. It deepens the understanding of the diversity in experimenting by highlighting the salient features of different types of governance experiments. It can therefore guide future research to generate more cumulative research findings contributing to a better understanding of the role and outcomes of experiments in societal transitions. The findings also suggest that real transitions towards low-carbon and climate-resilient societies will require a systematic deliberate combination of different types of experiments

Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands

“…We reviewed sustainability transitions, resilience, climate governance and meta-governance literatures, because they offer complementary concepts and insights for addressing transformation dynamics (Table 1). Climate governance literature highlights different entry points to understanding and supporting mitigation and adaptation, including transformational adaptation to respond to tipping points and disruptive impacts (Kates et al 2012;Lonsdale et al 2015;Wise et al 2014), experimentation to facilitate innovation Kivimaa et al 2017) and orchestration to ensure coordination and integration (Chan et al 2015;Abbott et al 2015;Abbott 2017). Both sustainability transitions and resilience approaches start from models of how complex adaptive systems evolve and to what extent system change can be anticipated and dealt with in a strategic and systemic way.…”

“…Escaping high-emission trajectories and overcoming persistent unsustainability and maladaptation require the development and diffusion of radical alternatives (Tàbara et al 2017;Kivimaa et al 2017). Sustainability transitions, resilience and climate governance literatures alike endorse the development and testing of new ideas, narratives, practices, policies and solutions to transform established institutions, infrastructures, behaviours, economies, etc.…”

“…(Loorbach et al 2015;Westley et al 2013). Important activities relate to the learning processes involved in the testing of innovations and their subsequent mainstreaming into policy and decision-making processes (Kivimaa et al 2017;den Exter et al 2014;Lonsdale et al 2015).…”

“…Creating the condition for novelty creation ensures space, resources and networks for developing and testing innovations (Raven et al 2010;Loorbach et al 2015;Frantzeskaki et al 2012;Olsson et al 2006). To challenge dominant regimes and motivate wider acceptance, uptake and replication, the innovation needs to gain visibility (Nevens et al 2013;Frantzeskaki et al 2012;Moore and Westley 2011) and it needs to be anchored in existing or new structures, cultures and practices to make the implications and lessons from an innovation generalizable (Bos and Brown 2012;den Exter et al 2014;Nevens et al 2013;Kivimaa et al 2017). …”

“…For example, though experimentation is lauded for galvanising innovation and learning, how experimentation connects to ongoing policy and planning processes and how the generated novelties can be mainstreamed are less examined (Kivimaa et al 2017;Turnheim et al 2018). Likewise, scholars have pointed to governance processes other than experimentation, which demand further attention.…”