Contrasting Regional Habitats for Urban Sustainability Experimentation in Europe
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Previous Research and Conceptual Framework
2.1. Constituting Dimensions of Habitats
- The existence of a local or regional vision is more important in the upper quadrants of Figure 1.
- The availability of regional knowledge and skills is more important in the quadrants on the left-hand side.
- A cooperative culture is more important in the lower quadrants.
- Trust is more important in the quadrants on the right-hand side.
2.1.1. Type of Governance
2.1.2. Type of Knowledge
2.1.3. Informal Localized Institutions
2.1.4. Regional Innovation Advantages
2.1.5. Social Learning
2.2. Synthesis: Archetypical Experimentation Patterns
3. Methodology
3.1. Case Selection
- The cases were expected to show a sharp mutual contrast. We were looking for cases that match the archetypes, and as such were expected to differ considerably on the dimensions identified in the framework.
- The cases were expected to differ from ‘the mainstream’ milieu. The innovative character of the experiments and habitat was an important criterion.
3.2. Data Collection
3.2.1. Interviews
- a scientist in regional geography or economy;
- a regional policy advisor or politician;
- a local policy advisor or politician;
- a leader (or potential leader) of a local/regional sustainability network;
- an expert who has an overview of countercultures in the region.
3.2.2. Action-Oriented Workshop
3.3. Data Analysis
3.4. Description of the Cases
- Case: Budapest—local urban food. In the city of Budapest, a group of grassroots creative niche experiments were started recently, focusing on sustainable food supply. We analysed experiments with urban farming, community gardens, a local food system, a food bank, and a responsible gastronomy initiative. Some of these may have been inspired by examples from other countries in Europe, but there is also a historical link with widespread kitchen gardens in Hungary in the past. At the moment, 36% of the Hungarian population still owns a kitchen garden [51]. The habitat in Budapest is special; it offers a number of supportive context factors, such as an urban culture and an international orientation. However, the grassroots experiments may face serious growth challenges in a traditional and defensive regime context.
- Case: Karlsruhe—future district. In the Oststadt district of Karlsruhe, a group of living lab experiments are carried out, focusing on the good life in the future. The ambition behind these experiments is that “we need time to get re-acquainted to ourselves and others, time to reflect on our behaviour and the impacts of that” [52]. The projects are focused on slowing down (i.e., to live in a more relaxed way) and community building. We analysed experiments with second-hand clothing, creative workshops, beekeeping, and district meetings aimed at reducing loneliness. The projects ran from July 2016 until March 2017 and were guided by the university and funded by the regional government. The habitat in Karlsruhe is interesting; in the past, many neighbourhood activities had been organized in this habitat, such as neighbourhood picnics. The regional context is formed by a prosperous region with a structural change towards science and innovation, and a growing creative class [53]. The region has a culture of liberality, open-mindedness, and willingness to experiment.
- Case: Valencia—science park. In Valencia, many sustainability experiments are carried out, often in a living lab setting. We analysed experiments with food (biological food in a hospital), energy (an ICT solution for saving energy), mobility (a sharing system for electrical cars), and water (water-saving technology). Experiments are governed by a hospital, a firm, the campus organization, and a technological R&D institute. The experiments are carried out in a campus milieu, often with strong links to the universities. The experiments are rooted in the technological specialization of the region, which has a culture of people willing to take risks.
- Case Toulouse—fab region. In the city region of Toulouse, there is a remarkable concentration of makerspaces. We analysed two repair cafés, two experiments in fab labs, and one in a hackerspace. The results of the experiments could be transferred to incubators and firms. There are about 25 incubators and accelerators in the region, many with a technological focus. The makerspaces have a strong community and the people involved have a general sustainability ambition, which is sometimes reflected in the experiments. The experiments are carried out by citizens. The regional conditions of Toulouse seem to be very well suited: there is a strong technological specialization in the region and a culture of open-mindedness.
4. Results
4.1. Budapest—Local Urban Food
4.2. Karlsruhe—Future District
4.3. Valencia—Science Park
4.4. Toulouse—Fab Region
4.5. Comparison of the Four City Regions
- In general, we observe that the five analytical dimensions of the constructed archetypical experimentation patterns (see Figure 2) have explanatory power for the diversity between the cases. However, elements of other archetypes are also visible in the cases. Such a mixture is, for instance, visible in the Karlsruhe—future district case (in which the governance is mainly guided but also has grassroots elements) and in the Valencia—science park case (which deals mainly with technological innovation but also has some elements of social innovation).
- The role of countercultures is worth noting; these are very important in all four cases. Apparently, they play a crucial role in experimentation and future scaling, for instance, as pioneer users, participants, or stakeholders. The importance of pioneer users of innovations has been described by Rogers [54], who mentions the early adopters as an important user group and an integrated part of the local social system. In our research, the characteristics of the countercultures in the four cases are clearly different. In the upper quadrants, the countercultures mostly comprise young people, for whom community building is important, and who are searching for a new lifestyle. In the lower quadrants, and especially in Toulouse, the counterculture has a more radical character; it shows a stronger resistance against the mainstream.
- In all the cases examined in this research, respondents emphasize creativity and open-mindedness as important cultural factors; creativity is not reserved for the ‘middleground’ habitat. This finding refers to the work of Florida [45], who shows that creativity and openness to innovation correlates with a specific subculture. In a few cases, these factors are not limited to the counterculture but are rather a characteristic of the general regional culture. The regional innovation advantages are important in each of the cases. In three cases, the respondents underscore the good living conditions as important; in Valencia it was added that ‘these conditions attract innovators and talent’. This was also recognized by Moulaert and Mehmood [15], who mention the natural environment as an important part of an innovative milieu. There is a contrast in regional innovation advantages between the upper and lower quadrants. In the upper quadrants, the education levels and presence of knowledge institutes are emphasized, whereas in the lower quadrants, a social and environmental awareness is underlined. This awareness in the grassroots habitats is also emphasized by Seyfang and Smith [26]; they show that people’s motivation for grassroots action is based upon different values from the mainstream, for example, by a bottom-up generation of alternative systems of provision.
- In every case there is a strong awareness that learning is an important factor in sustainability experimentation. Learning by doing is the favorite learning style in the two quadrants on the left-hand side. In the quadrants on the right-hand side, no favorite learning style was indicated. Overall, we see that stakeholders are primarily interested in exchanging knowledge, ideas, and experiences. This knowledge exchange can be classified as first-order learning. The interviewees do not mention second-order learning explicitly, although we observe some second-order learning in the quadrants on the right-hand side. Social learning was not directly addressed by the respondents; however, we observed a social learning process in the final workshops in the four cases. Indications of social learning were addressed in expressions such as “it is important to create a sectoral platform or network” (in the Budapest—local urban food case) and “it is important to develop more attractive projects” (in the Karlsruhe—future district case).
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
- Funding and regional networks are important factors enabling future upscaling in every habitat.
- Every habitat has its additional distinct factors which enable future upscaling.
- This study suggests that it is possible to influence the majority of the habitat factors enabling future upscaling in a positive way, such as funding, room for experimentation, and regional networks. However, some important other factors, such as regional knowledge and skills have a path-dependent nature; as they are rooted in the socio-economic history of the region, they are not easy to improve in the short term.
- We observe that nowadays policymakers are very interested in developing their own city or region into a copy of an iconic successful example, such as a ‘Silicon Valley’, a ‘creative city’, or a ‘smart city’. This aspiration often goes hand in hand with a form of experimental governance to test innovations. This study has shown that there is a wide diversity in city regions. As a result, each city region may have its own specific context factors which enable these experiments. When making a future sustainability vision, we recommend for local and regional policymakers to anchor this vision in an analysis of the distinct available and necessary context factors. The method developed here may be useful for that analysis.
- An important finding of this research is that the majority of the habitat factors enabling future upscaling can be influenced in a positive way, mostly by the regional stakeholders. This insight may have empowered the group of interviewees and motivated them to think about future joint actions. Our policy recommendation is to support these discussions, and to stimulate the formation or further expansion of a multi-actor sustainability network or platform. These networks may enable experimentation towards future upscaling.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Interview Questions, List of Interviewees, List of Workshops, Overview of Document Analysis
Interview Questions
- Trends (experts only). We asked the interviewees to indicate the important demographical, economic, and cultural trends in the context of the sustainability experiments in this region. We incorporated the analysis of trends in the interviews, as experimentation in cities and regions may be strongly influenced by global or national pressures and social interests [55] as part of the socio-technical landscapes in the multilevel perspective. Trends may result in change at the regime level, creating opportunities for experiments [56].
- Experiments in the region (experts only). We asked the interviewees which sustainability experiments were carried out in the region.
- Description of the experiment (project leaders only). We asked the interviewees what the experiment was about, what the respondent’s task was, and what the respondent aimed to achieve with this experiment.
- Factors expected to enable future upscaling (experts only). We asked the interviewees which factors were expected to enable future upscaling of the experiments in the region. Upscaling was translated into ‘growth’, to facilitate comprehension by the respondents. Some respondents asked for a clarification of this question. We explained that we define ‘growth’ as ‘obtaining more users and more projects’.
- Top five factors (project leaders only). We asked the interviewees to select the five most important factors that are expected to enable future upscaling for their project, and in what way these factors were important. Upscaling was translated into ‘growth’, to facilitate comprehension by the respondents. The respondents were asked to select the factors from a longlist of 15 factors.This longlist was built on our earlier research on habitats [11]. The longlist contained (i) the most important habitat factors from our earlier research [11]; (ii) the most important project-internal factors from our earlier research [11]; (iii) social learning factors; (iv) two general factors; and (v) a ‘wildcard’ factor (chosen by the respondent).Habitat factors were cooperation in regional networks, funding, room for experimentation, regional learning, match with regional vision/specialization, and regional knowledge and skills.Project-internal factors were user involvement, profitability, and technical quality of the innovation. Social learning factors were trust, commitment, and reframing (reframing was translated into ‘gaining new insights and perceptions’, to facilitate comprehension by the respondents). We used the social learning factors described by Sol et al. [38].We added two general factors: leadership and attitude towards risk. Leadership is often mentioned in both transition literature and entrepreneurship literature. The attitude towards risk is mentioned as a specific transformational leadership competence, focused on innovation [57].
- Can the enabling factors be influenced (project leaders only)? We asked whether these factors can be influenced in a positive way, and if so, by whom.
- Role of learning (both). We asked what the role of learning is in this process, e.g., is it needed to gain new insights.
- Regional advantages (both). We asked what makes this region special for these experiments, and whether this region is unique for these kinds of experiments in Europe.
List of Interviewees
Case: Budapest—Local Urban Food
No. | Role and Type of Respondent | Date of Interview |
1.1 | Community gardens coordinator (project leader) | 3 November 2016 |
1.2 | Expert on food, abandoned spaces, and creativity (expert) | 4 November 2016 |
1.3 | Initiator of local food system (project leader) | 4 November 2016 |
1.4 | Expert in change agents in Hungary (expert) | 4 November 2016 |
1.5 | Responsible gastronomy volunteer (project leader) | 6 November 2016 |
1.6 | Foodbank project manager and trainer in agro-food (project leader) | 7 November 2016 |
1.7 | Urban farming pioneer (project leader) | 7 November 2016 |
1.8 | Local politician (expert) | 8 November 2016 |
1.9 | Agriculture researcher (expert) | 9 November 2016 |
1.10 | Local food systems researcher (expert) | 10 November 2016 |
Case: Karlsruhe—Future District
No. | Role and Type of Respondent | Date of Interview |
2.1 | Team member of project on reducing loneliness (project leader) | 13 January 2017 |
2.2 | Initiator of project on second-hand clothing (project leader) | 14 January 2017 |
2.3 | Team member of project on beekeeping (project leader) | 14 January 2017 |
2.4 | Coordinator of local agenda 21/policy advisor of regional government (expert) | 2 May 2017 |
2.5 | Two initiators of project on creative workshops (project leader) | 3 May 2017 |
2.6 | Creative sector expert (expert) | 3 May 2017 |
2.7 | Three policy advisors of local government (expert) | 3 May 2017 |
2.8 | Coordinator of the future district projects (expert) | 4 May 2017 |
Case: Valencia—Science Park
No. | Role and Type of Respondent | Date of Interview |
3.1 | Science park expert (expert) | 11 May 2017 |
3.2 | Team member of car sharing project (project leader) | 11 May 2017 |
3.3 | Business developer of ICT solutions for energy savings (project leader) | 11 May 2017 |
3.4 | Expert in international projects (expert) | 11 May 2017 |
3.5 | Expert in education for sustainability pioneers (expert) | 15 May 2017 |
3.6 | Two team members of biological food project (project leader) | 16 May 2017 |
3.7 | Two policy advisors of local government (expert) | 17 May 2017 |
3.8 | R&D manager in water savings technology (project leader) | 18 May 2017 |
Case: Toulouse—Fab Region
No | Role and Type of Respondent | Date of Interview |
4.1 | Expert in makerspaces in Toulouse (expert) | 30 October 2017 |
4.2 | Fab lab manager (expert) | 30 October 2017 |
4.3 | Fab lab connector (expert) | 30 October 2017 |
4.4 | Researcher of regional economy in Toulouse (expert) | 31 October 2017 |
4.5 | Developer of creative prototype at fab lab (project leader) | 31 October 2017 |
4.6 | Advisor of repair café for bikes (project leader) | 31 October 2017 |
4.7 | Initiator of repair café (project leader) | 31 October 2017 |
4.8 | Developer of energy prototype at fab lab (project leader) | 1 November 2017 |
4.9 | Hackerspace developer (project leader) | 1 November 2017 |
4.10 | Former regional coordinator of fab labs (expert) | 2 November 2017 |
4.11 | Regional politician (expert) | 2 November 2017 |
4.12 | Fab lab coordinator and incubator (expert) | 2 November 2017 |
4.13 | Local politician (expert) | 2 November 2017 |
List of Workshops
Case | Date | Location | Number of Participants |
Budapest—local urban food | 11 November 2016 | Budapest | 7 |
Karlsruhe—future district | 5 May 2017 | Karlsruhe | 8 |
Valencia—science park | 19 May 2017 | Valencia | approx. 25 |
Toulouse—fab region | 6 November 2017 | Toulouse | 10 |
Overview of Document Analysis
Case | # of Documents Analysed | # of Websites Visited | # of Folders Analysed | # of Visits to Meetings |
Budapest—local urban food | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
Karlsruhe—future district | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Valencia—science park | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Toulouse—fab region | 3 | 2 | 1 |
References
- Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potjer, S.; Hajer, M. Learning with cities, learning for cities. The Golden Opportunity of the Urban Agenda for the EU. Available online: https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/essay-urbanfuturesstudio-12juli-web.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2018).
- Evans, J. Trials and Tribulations: Problematizing the City through/as Urban Experimentation. Geogr. Compass 2016, 10, 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulkeley, H.; Castan Broto, V. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2013, 38, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wendler, J. Grassroots experimentation: Alternative learning and innovation in the Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin. In The Experimental City; Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Raven, R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 150–162. [Google Scholar]
- Monstadt, J. Urban governance and the transition of energy systems: Institutional change and shifting energy and climate policies in Berlin. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2007, 31, 326–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hielscher, S.; Smith, A.; Fressoli, M. WP4 Case Study Report: FabLabs; Report for the TRANSIT FP7 Project; SPRU, University of Sussex: Brighton, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Longhurst, N. Towards an “alternative” geography of innovation: Alternative milieu, socio-cognitive protection and sustainability experimentation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 17, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raven, R.; Sengers, F.; Spaeth, P.; Xie, L.; Cheshmehzangi, A.; de Jong, M. Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, T.; Coenen, L. The Geography of Sustainability Transitions: Review, Synthesis and Reflections on an Emergent Research Field. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 17, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Heiligenberg, H.A.R.M.; Heimeriks, G.J.; Hekkert, M.P.; van Oort, F.G. A habitat for sustainability experiments: Success factors for innovations in their local and regional contexts. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 169, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wieczorek, A.J.; Raven, R.; Berkhout, F. Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: A typology and the case of solar voltaic energy in India. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 17, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heimeriks, G.; Boschma, R. The path- and place-dependent nature of scientific knowledge production in biotech 1986–2008. J. Ecom. Geogr. 2014, 14, 339–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekulova, F.; Anguelovski, I.; Argüelles, L.; Conill, J. A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework. Environ. Plan. A 2017, 49, 2362–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F.; Mehmood, A. Analysing regional development and policy: A structural-realist approach. Reg. Stud. 2010, 44, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F.; Nussbaumer, J. The social region. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2005, 12, 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coenen, L.; Benneworth, P.; Truffer, B. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 968–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sengers, F.; Wieczorek, A.J.; Raven, R. Experiments in Sustainability Transitions: A Systematic Literature Review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontes, M.; Sousa, C.; Ferreira, J. The spatial dynamics of niche trajectory: The case of wave energy. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2016, 19, 66–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maskell, P.; Malmberg, A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Camb. J. Econ. 1999, 23, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekkarinen, S.; Harmaakorpi, V. Building regional innovation networks: The definition of an age business core process in a regional innovation system. Reg. Stud. 2006, 40, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hekkert, M.P.; Suurs, R.A.A.; Negro, S.O.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R.E.H.M. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essletzbichler, J. Renewable Energy Technology and Path Creation: A Multi-scalar Approach to Energy Transition in the UK. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 791–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, P. Regional Innovation Systems: Competitive Regulation in the New Europe. Geoforum 1992, 23, 365–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Politics 2007, 16, 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truffer, B.; Coenen, L. Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Reg. Stud. 2012, 46, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asheim, B.; Coenen, L.; Moodysson, J.; Vang, J. Constructing knowledge-based regional advantage: Implications for regional innovation policy. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2007, 7, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loeber, A.; van Mierlo, B.; Grin, J.; Leeuwis, C. The practical value of theory: Conceptualising learning in the pursuit of a sustainable development. In Social Learning towards a More Sustainable World; Wals, A., Ed.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 83–98. [Google Scholar]
- Bathelt, H.; Malmberg, A.; Maskell, P. Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2004, 28, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spencer, G.M. Knowledge Neighbourhoods: Urban Form and Evolutionary Economic Geography. Reg. Stud. 2015, 49, 883–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittmayer, J.M.; Loorbach, D. Governing transitions in cities: Fostering alternative ideas, practices, and social relations through transition management. In Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions, Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions; Loorbach, D., Wittmayer, J.M., Shiroyama, H., Fujino, J., Mizuguchi, S., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Duranton, G.; Puga, D. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies, handbook of regional and urban economics. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 1st ed.; Henderson, J.V., Thisse, J.F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 4, Chapter 48; pp. 2063–2117. [Google Scholar]
- McCauley, S.M.; Stephens, J.C. Green energy clusters and socio-technical transitions: Analysis of a sustainable energy cluster for regional economic development in Central Massachusetts, USA. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asheim, B.T.; Gertler, M.S. The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 291–317. [Google Scholar]
- Boschma, R. Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Reg. Stud. 2005, 39, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D. Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-based Governance Framework. Gov. Int. J. Policy Adm. Inst. 2010, 23, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sol, J.; Beers, P.J.; Wals, A.E.J. Social learning in regional innovation networks: Trust, commitment and reframing as emergent properties of interaction. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolosi, E.; Feola, G. Transition in place: Dynamics, possibilities, and constraints. Geoforum 2016, 76, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W.; Deuten, J.J. Local and global dynamics in technological development: A socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Sci. Public Policy 2006, 33, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truffer, B.; Murphy, J.T.; Raven, R. The geography of sustainability transitions contours of an emerging theme. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 17, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenney, M. Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region; Stanford University Press: Stanford, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Lam, A. Organizational innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation; Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 115–147. [Google Scholar]
- Cohendet, P.; Grandadam, D.; Simon, L. The Anatomy of the Creative City. Ind. Innov. 2010, 17, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florida, R. The Rise of the Creative Class; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bryman, A. Social Research Methods, 4th ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elman, C. Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics. Int. Organ. 2005, 59, 293–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, J.; Schliwa, G.; Luke, K. The glorious failure of the experimental city: Cautionary tales from Arcosanti and Masdar City. In The Experimental City; Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Raven, R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 218–235. [Google Scholar]
- Fois, F. Enacting Intentional Heterotopias: Discovering Alternative Spaces through a Relational-Scalar Approach in the Spiritual Intentional Communities of Damanhur (Italy) and Terra Mirim (Brazil); Newcastle University: Newcastle, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Balázs, B.; Bertényi, G.; Králl, A.; Pintér, L.; Strenchock, L. Analysis of Green niche-Innovations and Their Momentum in the Two Pathways. Country Report 10: Green Niche-Innovations in the Hungarian Agro-Food System. Available online: http://www.pathways-project.eu/sites/default/files/Country%20report%2010%20Hungarian%20agrofood%20niches.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2018).
- Quartier Zukunft. Available online: www.quartierzukunft.de (accessed on 2 February 2018).
- Hammer, A.; Ott, I.; Stiller, S. Karlsruhe Oststadt: Heute und in Zukunft; Report Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hodson, M.; Geels, F.W.; McMeekin, A. Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability 2017, 9, 922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raven, R.P.J.M. Strategic Niche Management for Biomass; Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Senge, P.; Hamilton, H.; Kania, J. The dawn of system leadership. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2015, 13, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
Dimension in Archetypical Experimentation Patterns | Related Interview Questions (the Letters Refer to the Questions as Described in the Appendix A) | |
---|---|---|
Type of knowledge | b. c. g | Experiments in the region Description of the experiment Role of learning |
Type of governance | b. c. | Experiments in the region Description of the experiment |
Informal localized institutions | a. d | Trends Factors expected to enable future upscaling |
Regional innovation advantages | a. h. | Trends Regional advantages |
Social learning | g. | Role of learning |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Van den Heiligenberg, H.; Heimeriks, G.; Hekkert, M.; Raven, R.; Sol, J. Contrasting Regional Habitats for Urban Sustainability Experimentation in Europe. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051624
Van den Heiligenberg H, Heimeriks G, Hekkert M, Raven R, Sol J. Contrasting Regional Habitats for Urban Sustainability Experimentation in Europe. Sustainability. 2018; 10(5):1624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051624
Chicago/Turabian StyleVan den Heiligenberg, Harm, Gaston Heimeriks, Marko Hekkert, Rob Raven, and Jifke Sol. 2018. "Contrasting Regional Habitats for Urban Sustainability Experimentation in Europe" Sustainability 10, no. 5: 1624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051624