Reinterpreting urban institutions for sustainability: How epistemic networks shape knowledge and logics

Abstract

Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Reinterpreting urban institutions for sustainability: how epistemic networks shape knowledge and logics AbstractLong term urban resilience demands a transition to a low-carbon society but poses a dilemma: the institutions that stabilise and perpetuate sociotechnical systems must become agents of radical change. The possibility of alternative futures challenges the logics and values central to institutional identity.ÔSustainability transitionsÕ thus raise questions of institutional reinterpretation. The extent of such reinterpretation hinges on the everyday Ôinstitutional workÕ of actors who bring diverse understandings to bear on their roles and responsibilities. These understandings derive not only from actorsÕ professional roles but also from their engagement in wider epistemic networks.Based on case studies of three urban organisations in northern England, this paper examines the impact and influence of epistemic networks in validating or challenging approaches to sustainability transitions. The research found such networking a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for institutional reinterpretation. Epistemic networks serve five functions: they inspire, legitimise and facilitate potential transitions, and challenge slow progress -but they can also limit transitions. From these findings, it is argued that epistemic networks are central to the identification and development of nascent Ôtransition arenasÕ (Loorbach, 2010) where more sustainable, and ultimately more resilient, futures may be tested and trialled.

Universities, Sustainability, and Neoliberalism: Contradictions of the Climate Emergency Declarations

“…Enacting a low carbon transition raises questions for institutions about how they can reorient their operations to meet such environmental objectives (cf. Dobson, 2019). As Dobson (2019) notes, the very institutions and organisations that are perceived as being able to facilitate transformation may be stumbling blocks.…”

“…Dobson, 2019). As Dobson (2019) notes, the very institutions and organisations that are perceived as being able to facilitate transformation may be stumbling blocks. The path to decarbonisation is far from straightforward (Jänicke, 2008), and there can be many diver-sions and distractions.…”

“…UNEP (2018, p. vx) stated that 2020 is the latest year when emissions should peak to meet the Paris Agreement temperature targets. The IPCC projections indicate the need for socioeconomic transformation (Gills & Morgan, 2020, p. 894), yet there is little sign of emissions abating nor the neces-sary institutional change (Dobson, 2019;Gills & Morgan, 2020). The high-carbon conjuncture, now known as the Anthropocene, provides a strong rationale for such institutional change.…”

Multilevel knowledge management for municipal climate action: Lessons from evaluating the operational situation of climate action managers in the German Federal State of Lower Saxony

“…With reference to one of the "knowledge system analysis" (Muñoz-Erickson et al, 2017) frameworks recently proposed, the present study focuses on "functions" and "complexities" (Muñoz-Erickson et al, 2017) of knowledge systems by applying a multilevel knowledge management approach. In future work, it would be useful to compare this study with works applying complementary perspectives that look, for instance, more at epistemic aspects (Dobson, 2019;Frantzeskaki and Rok, 2018). Furthermore, there are various other factors and contexts to knowledge systems that we have not considered explicitly such as available resources (Hegger et al, 2012;Nonaka, 1994) or the political and economic context (Feagan et al, 2019;Jasanoff, 2010).…”

Falling Down Before the Divine Right of Experts? Exploring the significance of epistemic communities in multi-level governance arrangements

“…Whereas MLG needs to move away from its occasional fixation on state transformation, epicom scholars would benefit from broadening their perspectives, which would include the consideration of the shaping of governance processes (among other issues ) 31 . Some scholars, such as Haas for example, have more recently explored the place of epicoms within environmental governance (Haas, 2015a(Haas, , 2015b, as has Cross (2018), while others have examined epicoms within European security governance (Eriksen, 2011;Van Waarden & Drahos, 2002) and municipal governance (Dobson, 2019;Mabon et al, 2019). Yet what they share is a willingness to speculate on the connection between epicoms and institutionalised patterns of policymaking and governance but less concern to examine the actual mechanics and existence of such a connection.…”