Rethinking the governance of urban infrastructural transformations: a synthesis of emerging approaches

Monstadt, Jochen; Torrens, Jonas; Jain, Mansi; Macrorie, Rachel; Smith, Shaun R

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101157

Cited by 22 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other three enablers include inclusive processes of intent formulation , genuine engagement with those impacted, and co-production of knowledge , each also helping drive institutional change. In a particular situation these are likely to require collaborative, systemic, goal-setting and evolutionary strategies (Grabowski et al 2017 ; Monstadt et al 2022 ) that combine the impact of entrepreneurs, communities, activists and collaborations supported by courageous change leaders from within current institutions (Waddell 2018 ), and recognition that institutional and societal change is influenced by developments and actors beyond the local scale (Geels 2011 ; Sareen and Waagsaether 2022 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling urban systems transformations: co-developing national and local strategies

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformative urban development is urgent to achieve future sustainable development and wellbeing. Transformation can benefit from shared and cumulative learning on strategies to guide urban development across local to national scales, while also reflecting the complex emergent nature of urban systems, and the need for context-specific and place-based solutions. The article addresses this challenge, drawing on extensive transdisciplinary engagement and National Strategy co-development processes for Australia. This includes generation of two frameworks as boundary objects to assist such transdisciplinary strategy development. An ‘enabling urban systems transformation’ framework comprises four generic overarching transformation enablers and a set of necessary underpinning urban capacities. This also built cumulatively on other sustainability and urban transformation studies. A complementary ‘knowledge for urban systems transformation’ framework comprises key knowledge themes that can support an integrated systems approach to mission-focused urban transformations, such as decarbonising cities. The article provides insights on the transdisciplinary processes, urban systems frameworks, and scoping of key strategies that may help those developing transformation strategies from local to national scales.Science highlights• Transdisciplinary national urban strategy development is used to distil generic frameworks and strategy scopes with potential international application.• The frameworks also build on other published framings to support convergent, cumulative and transdisciplinary urban science.• The ‘enabling transformations’ and ‘urban knowledge’ frameworks include the perspective of those developing sustainable urban systems strategies.• The enabling framework also informs ‘National Urban Policy’ and ‘Knowledge and Innovation Hub’ strategies, and prevailing power imbalances.• The knowledge framework can help frame urban challenges, missions and knowledge programs.Policy and practice recommendations• An urban ‘transformation imperative’ and ‘strategic response’ can be co-developed from local to national scales.• Local initiative is crucial to drive urban strategies, but sustained national leadership with coherent policy across sectors and scales is also key.• Diversity in engagement participation and processes generates whole-of-urban-systems and local-to-national perspectives.• Urban solutions are context-specific but generic frameworks can help collaborative issue framing and responses.• Collaborative issue framing informed by generic frameworks can bring broader perspectives to context-specific and contested policy and practice issues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling urban systems transformations: co-developing national and local strategies

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While maintaining an infrastructure system the manager may decide that the operations are sufficient to meet needs for today, rather than considering how those needs are changing over time, since the minimum requirement is being met. This can result in shock events being major drivers of change as the organization acknowledges its failures to respond to current conditions corresponding with a window of opportunity to change (Khalil 2013, Abson et al 2017, Iwaniec et al 2019, Monstadt et al 2022. However, it is critical to keep in mind the spatial and temporal scales when making these decisions to ensure that the entire system is not optimized for a temporary state Allenby 2019, Helmrich and.…”

Section: Historical Analysis Of Lock-inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lock-in: origination and significance within infrastructure systems

Helmrich,

Chester,

Miller

et al. 2023

Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructure systems have legacies that continue to define their priorities, goals, flexibility, and ability to make sense of their environments. These legacies may or may not align with future needs, but regardless of alignment, they may restrict viable pathways forward. Infrastructure ‘lock-in’ has not been sufficiently confronted in infrastructure systems. Lock-in can loosely be interpreted as internal and external pressures that constrain a system, and it encourages self-reinforcing feedback where the system becomes resistant to change. By acknowledging and recognizing that lock-in exists at small and large scales, perpetuated by individuals, organizations, and institutions, infrastructure managers can critically reflect upon biases, assumptions, and decision-making approaches. This article describes six distinct domains of lock-in: technological, social, economic, individual, institutional, and epistemic. Following this description, strategies for unlocking lock-in, broadly and by domain, are explored before being contextualized to infrastructure systems. Ultimately, infrastructure managers must make a decision between a locked in and faltering but familiar system or a changing and responsive but unfamiliar system, where both are, inevitably, accepting higher levels of risk than typically accustomed.

show abstract

“…However, there have been growing calls for moving beyond ad hoc experiments and the insistence on upscaling as primary transformation mechanism (Savini and Bertolini, 2019;Monstadt et al, 2022). These contributions argue for moving toward longer-term and diversified modes of urban experimentation that embrace multiplicity and co-creation (Evans et al, 2021;Torrens and von Wirth, 2021).…”

Section: Urban Experiments and Urban Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimenting with automated driving for technology or for the city? A matter of governance cultures

Servou

Mögele

Torrens

2022

Front. Sustain. Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban experiments have been promoted as means to enable innovation for sustainability, particularly in urban mobility. Yet, they have been criticized for struggling to stimulate broader transformations, as they often are detached from public-value principles, lack embeddedness in the cities' everyday realities and are industry-oriented. How cultural changes on different governance levels intersect to produce urban experiments with transformative potential has received little attention. This paper focuses on how urban experiments are co-created with broader governance cultures in multiple governance levels, and what the implications of this co-creation are for urban transformation. We provide a theoretical background on the interrelations between governance cultures and urban experimentation, and the debate on urban experimentation within Science and Technology Studies, transition/innovation studies and urban studies to identify the main barriers for urban transformation. We, then, present our methodology consisting of the case study selection of the multi-level governance nexus State-Region-City in Stuttgart and Karlsruhe, our data collection with interviews and documents, and the analytical tool of storylines to capture the co-production of governance cultures and urban experiments. We continue with the analysis of the case study of automated driving experimentation with the concept of storylines. Our findings show that urban experiments are more likely to lead to urban transformation when the local public sector has a strong role in governance processes, and when experiments emerge through deliberation on daily urban problems and policy agendas. When governance processes are mainly led by state and industry actors who prioritize testing technologies as universal and scalable byproducts, it is less likely for urban experiments to lead to urban transformation. Finally, we discuss when urban experimentation advances technology per se and when it adds public value and advances sustainability, arguing for a co-existence of different kinds of urban experiments. We conclude with future research and policy implications.

show abstract

Rethinking the governance of urban infrastructural transformations: a synthesis of emerging approaches

Cited by 22 publications

References 43 publications

Enabling urban systems transformations: co-developing national and local strategies

Enabling urban systems transformations: co-developing national and local strategies

Lock-in: origination and significance within infrastructure systems

Experimenting with automated driving for technology or for the city? A matter of governance cultures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About