Jump to content

User:Trilliumz/Green Experiments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the threat of global warming becomes ever so real [1][2], the need to make society and economy more resilient and sustainable to climate change is ever so vital for governance. To tackle this problem, some interesting modes of experimental governance known as green experiment projects have emerged. With its unique method of knowledge generation and innovation through mutual partnership among stakeholders, this new form reflects the usefulness of a “knowledge sharing process”[3] in urban governance. Within this context, green experiments can be used to denote projects in which an entire urban region or a section of it is used as a decarbonisation (or green) laboratory. Examples of such projects exist in the Masdar City, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK and in the Viikkii district of Helsinki, Finland. These types of projects ensure policies are always open ended and viewed as being experimental, with no certainty of results even after implementation. Hence, policies are “test run” for the purpose of knowledge creation, generation and validation through a process of repeated experimentation in the dynamic real world. This governance approach aims at restructuring the geometry of governance in the field of sustainability and climate change by creating a common front for state and non-state actors, under a platform of mutual partnership. Achieving this aim could facilitate the practicalisation of policies by stimulating an environmentalism mindset among the public. With such potentials of reinvigorating public and private interests on sustainability, there is need to examine this model of governance in details. Hence, it is important to understand the history and fruition of green experiments (GE) and how it is re-shaping sustainability and climate change governance and also highlight the reasons such projects have been located around urban centres. Works of Ann, Kohler and Evans and Andrew was also important in examining the experiment theme of green experiments. Although this type of experiment is being operationalised in different modes, a model example worth noting is the Eco Viikkii project, which explicate the effectiveness of this mode of governance “on the ground”. The Eco Viikkii project is ideal, because it has the essential qualities necessary that answer several policy questions on sustainability, mitigation and adaptation. The success of the Eco Viikkii project sets it as an archetype for sustainable urban development. However, an appraisal of green experiments in practice and its future in sustainability governance is essential in examining this trend.

History

[edit]

The term sustainability was first mentioned in the meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in 1980. However, it was not until 1992 that a globally oriented policy was formulated. The Earth Summit, as it was then called reinvigorated world focus on sustainability and the need to curb the causes and effects of global warming. These key concerns shaped and facilitated the need for green experiments as countries were given carbon emission targets and encouraged to adopt low carbon development. But it was by far the carbonisation of urbanisation and the greater opportunities in reducing carbon by territorialising emission “niches” that catalysed the innovation and mainstreaming of green experiments. For example Rice (2010)[4] identified climitisation and carbonisation policies as being instrumental in stimulating “green” infrastructures in places like Seattle. Since urban centres concentrate human and capital resources and activities the potential of carbon emission reduction that could be achieved by locating such test bed projects in it would be significantly higher than in anywhere else. It is then not surprising that most green experiment projects are found in and around urban centres. Besides, more than half the world’s population reside in urban areas and this trend is expected to increase over the coming years[5]. Such urban expansion, if unchecked, would definitely result in more emissions. This created an opportunity for policy experimentation and ushered in a new concept in carbon emissions governance. By restructuring urban landscape via partnership among stakeholders, GE provided a new way of carbon emissions governance. It focused more on regulating urbanisation which is the backbone for regulating urban activities and by so doing aims at “the reinvention of the everyday [urban life]”[6]. The way to achieve this was, put forward by Scott (1996). With some dint of pessimism, He diagrammatically emphasised the need for stakeholders to realise their common goal within a “triangle of conflicting goals”. This idea of a common purpose, even within the multivariate urban terrain, set the stage for partnerships among the academia, businesses, public and government, which in turn facilitated the fruition of large-scale urban experimental projects. Although a very effective means of governance, the “experiment” theme of GE is a concept that requires clarification to be fully grasped. The next section would focus on conceptualising this theme as it relates to governance.

Conceptualising green experiments

[edit]

"The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones”, this quote, credited to sheikh Ahmed Zaki the oil minister of Saudi Arabia in the 1970s reflects the need for continuous innovation by experimentation. From the natural science point of view, experiments are activities “designed specifically for the laboratory environment” [7]. How could activities carried out outside the confines of a conventional laboratory be called an experiment? The “experiment” notion hence falls short in this regards. However, Kohler (2002) remarked that “it is possible to devise methods that combine the ideals of lab and field”. Put differently, the “field”, could possibly be an “urban lab” where experiments can be carried out. This possibility was fully analysed by Evans and Andrew (2010). They argue that, such experiments, though in the field, still conforms to a border of protected area where innovative ideas are developed and “real world” knowledge generated. This knowledge generation in the field enhances quality data collected by engaging with a wider participant[8]. As put by Ann (2000) the drive towards qualitative research was “a desire to democratise the process by enabling the voices of people as research participants to be heard”[9]. Green experiments reflects this democratisation theme by engaging a broader spectrum of stakeholders in a voluntary network of partnership. The concept works by broadening the boundaries of the traditional scientific lab to the borders of the real world. Hence, economic, environmental and social factors become potential sources of data required to effectively re-focus policies. Thus, echoing the notion of governance as an all-inclusive process. Partners under this mode of governance can generate and share information and learn collectively by establishing experimental niches for innovation. Hence, knowledge synthesised via this niches are tried in the society and further knowledge gained from “social reaction” are used to modify existing policies. Hence, resulting in a continuous learning process through “trial and error”, and as society evolves so policies for governance evolve and the knowledge building cycle becomes an essential requirement for sustainability.

Types of experiment

[edit]

Experimental projects can broadly be divided into three types they are:

Niches

[edit]

Adopted from the Dutch technological transition model[10] [11], niche experiments focuses on perfecting specific experimental policy within a “protected territory” before transferring it into the broader society. Experimental niches are highly technocentric and localised “laboratories” where innovative ideas can be developed to solve local problems that sometimes results in a global impact. Examples of niche experiment include the solar power desalination plant in Cooper Pedy, Australia[12]. Another classic example is the combined heat and power plant (CHP) used in Royal Brewery Manchester, which uses brewing by-products and is expected to reduce the brewery’s reliance on fossil fuel by 87%[13].

it is worth noting that not all ideas successfully evolve in the niches and some are unable to evolve with the society. In other words, socio-technical transitioning and upscaling[14] are the key disadvantages of experimental niches. Despite these disadvantages, experimental niches have been very useful in environmental governance, as most successful innovations of potentially global reach could be traced from niches. Also, this form of experiments relies heavily on government support to thrive. Support could come in the form of legislative support, tax breaks for innovative entrepreneurs or companies, or partnership with scientific research institutes.

Urban Laboratories

[edit]

These projects embrace the concept of reducing emissions by territorialisation and also focus on knowledge generation in the field. The idea of formalising innovation and knowledge creation[15] is reflected in these experiments, as urban landscapes are being modified (but not reconstructed) by embedding experimental projects into society. This facilitates social adaptation to technology, thereby aiding swift socio-technological transition. A good example of this type of GE is the Oxford Road Corridor in Manchester. Where a section of the city is territorialised as an urban lab to test run a low carbon development policy.

Niched Policy Experiments

[edit]

As an emerging type of experimentation with much prospect as a model for sustainable urbanisation, this type of GE could be termed “niched policy” experiments (NP henceforth). It can be conceptualised as a hybrid between the innovativeness of niches and the scale of urban laboratories. In other words it uses the logic of territorialisation of carbon on a broader scale. Its ultimate goal is to create “good carbon citizens” by altering or reconstructing those urban landscapes, which determines routine activities, like energy usage, water consumption and transportation. While the urban lab experiment lays its emphasis on knowledge production, NP experiments borders more on stimulating the “mentalities” of the citizen towards environmentalism which could facilitates technological evolution. Hence, it could be viewed as a way of governing by re-engineering the mindset of the citizen. Such experiments tend to avoid a scenario of “island of best practice surrounded by a sea of business as usual” (Bulkeley, 2000) which seemingly plays out with other experimental projects within urban centres. It also ensure the total "stripping off" of old technologies, which societies are usually “locked in” to [16] and facilitates even socio-technical integration in emerging urban region.

To fully clarify these experimental projects as an emerging form of governance, the next section would focus on how it is being implemented “on the ground” by analysing the Eco Viikkii project.

Eco Viikkii Project: An exemplar of experimental urbanisation

[edit]

In 1990, the Finnish legislature passed an amendment that gave support for incorporating sustainability in urban planning and green buildings. Backed by this legislation, the enthusiasm of pursuing sustainable development gave birth to a major experimental project named Eco Viikkii. Viikkii is a district 7 km northeast of the centre of Helsinki; the capital of Finland and in 1998 became the place where a new and audacious project that would restructure urban governance began. The experiment seeks ecological modernisation by restructuring urbanisation in an ecologically friendly manner through stepwise experimentation. Initial assessment started in 1993 with Eco-community projects which was a research carried out in partnership between Ministry of Environment, the Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA) and interested local authorities[17]. Hence, from the onset of the project the key players did already establish a partnership essential for coordination and idea sharing. This phase of the project was aimed at exploring the practicality of eco-buildings in small niches and by 1994; sixteen of such niches were in different places of the country. However, one (Viikkii) was selected because, among other advantages, its location resonates strongly with the urban theme of the project. This indeed reflects both the need for multilevel, voluntary partnership and learning by experimentation for governance to thrive. The selection of Viikkii coincided with its selection as nature conservation area. However, a final agreement to site the project in the present location was reached and approved in 1995. This agreement was made possible by inputs from both professional and local stakeholders. For example, The National Technology Agency of Finland, assisted in such agreements. But a key attraction was the economic benefits it holds on completion[18]. At its finishing point, Eco Viikkii would be able to create six thousand jobs as well as thirteen thousand homes. Also, subsidies were granted by the government in research and development of sustainable buildings. These subsidies were aimed at encouraging land owner develop their lands sustainably and is an exemplar of government’s steering role in encouraging innovation via subsidies. To facilitate settlements a capped pricing system that must not be exceeded was enforced by the Housing Fund of Finland (ARA). This ensured, in a way, that the project retains its experimental notion and was not wholly commercialised. As a green district, the buildings were designed to conserve energy and cut water consumption by 20%[19]

. In case of risk of flooding, the surface cover that is normally synonymous to conventional urbanisation was limited by intermittent “green zones” within streets. All these are undoubtedly key issues that borders on sustainability and climate change. Another remarkable innovation was the PIMWAG criteria in 1997, used to assess the “ecologicalness” of the project. Monitoring of the consumption of utilities like water and energy started in 2001[20], with results showing a remarkable drop when compared to other areas. Such record of success places the Eco Viikkii project as a model, reflecting opportunities for sustainability and low carbon development in green urbanisation.

Appraising green experiments

[edit]

The case study of Eco Viikkii reveals government’s role as being vital in governance. For example, state institutions played a key role in coordinating planning and subsidisation for innovative research, helped in creation of niches at the initial phase of the project. This however, would not have been possible without partnership among stakeholders with the willingness to pursue a common goal, where success is evenly shared. The low carbon experimentation reflects the concept of ecological modernisation as development went alongside economic interests. For example, while utility records in the Eco Viikkii project showed a lower consumption rate, the project was able to create jobs and homes. This would definitely attract the private sector and beckons a new hope for sustainable development. Economic interest and government support alone are not the only drivers for experimentation, factors like environmental constrains, location and technological need would also determine the success of innovation. For example, the solar powered desalination plant experimentation in the arid Cooper Pedy was a positive innovation because the location receives much sunlight and no possibility of building hydrothermal stations. Such a project would stimulate little interest if located in an area where there is abundant natural waters and already existing, cheap hydrothermal power supply. Not all innovative ideas brought to Viikkii were actually carried out. For example, the proposal to use geothermal energy source was not developed based on economic considerations. A similar reason was given for the withdrawal of an idea to use clays and building waste for floor designs. These kinds of setbacks are expected in an environment of experimentation. These shortcomings are indicative of experimental governance as a continuous process of learning by trial and error. Going back to the “Governmentality” concept of Foucault[21], government can re-engineer citizens to suit its purpose engaging them in green experiments. For example, residents of Eco Viikkii, over time, would develop an ecocentric mindset which would in the long run suit government’s purpose of sustainable development. To ensure success, government has to “learn” by partnering with other stakeholders so as to generate and share knowledge.

Creating the future by continuous learning

[edit]

Green experiments would require partnership among stakeholders to thrive. The support of government and private sector alone would not ensure experimental success, as socio-technical integration cannot be fully insured without involving society. Also key to success is stakeholder willingness, which can only come when there is voluntary partnership among stakeholders with a shared vision of sustainability, with mutual benefits. While these would drive experimentation, achieving long-term goals would depend on technological need, socio-technological integration, project location and continuous policy experimentation. Policy experimentation is driven by the need to learn how this would “fit into” the fabric of society. GE provides the opportunity for a continuous learning process, where knowledge generated in an initial experiment is used to formulate policies that would generate knowledge for future policies. This was reflected in the Eco Viikkii project where an initial experimental assessment helped in determining the practicality of further projects. Lessons learnt from Eco Viikkii can be implemented in the Madar City project, which in turn world generates more knowledge that could be used in future. Hence, ensuring a continuous and progressive harmony between event and knowledge.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ 10. Camille P and Gary Y (2003): A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems, Nature, Vol. 421, pages 37-42. Also available in http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf
  2. ^ 11. Gian-Reto W, Eric P, Peter C, Annette M, Camille P, Trevor J. C. B, Jean-Marc F, Ove Hoegh-GuldbergI and Franz Bairlein (2002); Ecological responses to recent climate change, Nature, Vol. 416. Page 389-395.
  3. ^ 12. Joanne E. O and Rachelle C. S (2004); the scope and Governance of International R & D Alliances, Strat. Mgmt. J., 25: 723–749. Also available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.391/pdf
  4. ^ 1. Rice, J. (2010) Climate, carbon and territory: greenhouse gas mitigation in Seattle, Washington. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100.4, 929-937.
  5. ^ 13. UNPD (2009); 2009 Revision of world urbanisation prospects. Also available at: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Documents/WUP2009_Press-Release_Final_Rev1.pdf
  6. ^ 18. Michiel D and Lieven D (2008); Heterotopia and the City: Public space in a postcivil society, Routledge, Introductory Chapter (p4).
  7. ^ 6. Kohler, R. (2002) Landscapes and labscapes: exploring the lab-field border in biology, Chicago University Press, Chicago, ISNB 0-226-45010-4. Chapter 5.
  8. ^ 14. Evans J and Andrew K (2010); Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon footprint!’ – Urban Laboratories and the Pursuit of Low Carbon Futures, Unpub, University of Manchester. Pages 1-28.
  9. ^ 9. Ann O (2000), Experiments in Knowing: GENDER AND METHOD IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, UK, ISBN 0-7456-2256-9. Pages 8-11.
  10. ^ 16. Kemp R, Schot J and Hoogma R (2001) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the Approach of Strategic niche Management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10. Pages 175-196.
  11. ^ 15. Geels F W and Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3). Pages 399-417.
  12. ^ 4. De Munari, A. Capão, D.P.S., Richards, B.S. , and Schäfer, A.I. (2009) Application of Solar-Powered Desalination in a Remote Town in South Australia, Desalination, 248, 72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2008.05.040. also available at: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/4263/1/J68%20ERA.pdf
  13. ^ 5. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/the-convenient-solution-case-studies
  14. ^ 3. Lars C, Rob R, and Geert V (2009); Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: a theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages, Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE) Lund University. Pages 1-24. Also available at: http://www.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/200908_Coenen_et_al.pdf
  15. ^ 8. Evans J and Andrew K (2010); Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon footprint!’ – Urban Laboratories and the Pursuit of Low Carbon Futures, Unpub, University of Manchester. Pages 1-28.
  16. ^ 17. Evans J: Environmental governance (2011),Routledge, Chapter 7
  17. ^ 8. Harri H M, Riitta J H, Aila K M, Heikki R, and Markku S (2005) Eco-Viikki; Aims, Implementation and Results, City of Helsinki Ministry of the Environment. ISBN 952-473-455-9, pages 1-54. Also available at: http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-viikki_en.pdf
  18. ^ 8. Harri H M, Riitta J H, Aila K M, Heikki R, and Markku S (2005) Eco-Viikki; Aims, Implementation and Results, City of Helsinki Ministry of the Environment. ISBN 952-473-455-9, pages 1-54. Also available at: http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-viikki_en.pdf
  19. ^ 17. Pirjo Pekkarinen-Kanerva, and Harri Hakaste (eds.) (2000), Towards a Sustainable City. The Viikki Eco Neighbourhood Blocks 2000, ISBN 951-9307-06-0 (English).
  20. ^ 8. Harri H M, Riitta J H, Aila K M, Heikki R, and Markku S (2005) Eco-Viikki; Aims, Implementation and Results, City of Helsinki Ministry of the Environment. ISBN 952-473-455-9, pages 1-54. Also available at: http://www.hel.fi/static/ksv/julkaisut/eco-viikki_en.pdf
  21. ^ 19. Foucault M (1991) “Governmentality”. In Burchell G, Gordon C and Miller P. (eds.) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hempsted: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Pages 87-104.
[edit]

On college and university campuses

[edit]

In communities

[edit]

In food production

[edit]

In households

[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trilliumz/Green_Experiments&oldid=431408590"