Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- 7 Developing Transformative and Orchestrating Capacities for Climate Governance Experimentation in Rotterdam
- 8 The Pilot Paradox
- 9 Policy Pilots for Climate Adaptation in Indian Agriculture
- 10 Evaluating Climate Governance Experiments
- 11 The City of Permanent Experiments?
- 12 Experiments and Beyond
- Index
- References
10 - Evaluating Climate Governance Experiments
Participants’ Perspectives on Low-Carbon Experiments in Finland
from Part II - Beyond Experiments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2018
Book contents
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Innovating Climate Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Beyond Experiments
- 2 Global Climate Governance after Paris
- Part I Experiments
- Part II Beyond Experiments
- 7 Developing Transformative and Orchestrating Capacities for Climate Governance Experimentation in Rotterdam
- 8 The Pilot Paradox
- 9 Policy Pilots for Climate Adaptation in Indian Agriculture
- 10 Evaluating Climate Governance Experiments
- 11 The City of Permanent Experiments?
- 12 Experiments and Beyond
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovating Climate GovernanceMoving Beyond Experiments, pp. 182 - 200Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Blamey, A., and Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), 439–455.Google Scholar
Bulkeley, H., and Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.Google Scholar
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001). From programme theory to constructivism on tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation, 7(3), 331–349.Google Scholar
Dahler-Larsen, P., and Schwandt, T. A. (2012). Political culture as context for evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(135), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O., and Sabel, C. (2014). Global experimentalist governance. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Schutter, O. (2010). The role of evaluation in experimentalist governance: Learning by monitoring in the establishment of the area of freedom, security, and justice. In Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (eds.), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 261–296.Google Scholar
Evans, J., and Karvonen, A. (2014). ‘Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon footprint!’ Urban laboratories and the governance of low-carbon futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 413–430.Google Scholar
Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36(2), 223–237.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. J. (2001). Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 161–181.Google Scholar
Geels, F. W., and Deuten, J. J. (2006). Local and global dynamics in technological development: A socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geels, F., and Raven, R. (2006). Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: Ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Programme (2015). Programme of Prime Minister Sipilä’s government. Accessed Oct 3rd 2017, http://valtioneuvosto.fi/sipilan-hallitus/hallitusohjelma?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_SSKDNE5ODInk_languageId=en_USGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, T. (2011). What lessons get shared? Case studies of community energy. Grassroots innovation research briefing 9. Accessed Oct 3rd 2017, https://grassrootsinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gi-9-cise-3rd-party-case-studies.pdfGoogle Scholar
Heiskanen, E., Jalas, M., Rinkinen, J., and Tainio, P. (2015). The local community as a ‘low-carbon lab’: Promises and perils. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 14, 149–164.Google Scholar
Hertting, N., and Vedung, E. (2012). Purposes and criteria in network governance evaluation: How far does standard evaluation vocabulary takes us? Evaluation, 18(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2007). Cities mediating technological transitions: The adaptability of infrastructure and infrastructures of adaptability. International Handbook of Urban Policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 240–258.Google Scholar
Hodson, M., and Marvin, S. (2009). Cities mediating technological transitions: Understanding visions, intermediation and consequences. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4), 515–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J., Stauning, I., and Søndergård, B. (2011). Local climate mitigation and eco-efforts in housing and construction as transition places. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(3), 183–198.Google Scholar
Hoogma, R., Weber, M., and Elzen, B. (2005). Integrated long-term strategies to induce regime shifts towards sustainability: The approach of strategic niche management. In Weber, M. and Hemmelskamp, J. (Eds.) Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., and Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014). Innovations in climate policy: The politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 715–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., and Newig, J. (2017). Experiments in climate governance – a systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 17–29.Google Scholar
Mickwitz, P., Hildén, M., Seppälä, J., and Melanen, M. (2011). Sustainability through system transformation: Lessons from Finnish efforts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1779–1787.Google Scholar
Mulgan, G. (2014). Innovation in the Public Sector: How Can Public Organisations better Create, Improve and Adapt? London: Nesta.Google Scholar
Naess, P., and Vogel, N. (2012). Sustainable urban development and the multi-level transition perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdevest, C., Bleicher, A., and Gross, M. (2010). The experimental turn in environmental sociology: Pragmatism and new forms of governance. In Gross, M. and Heinrichs, H. (Eds.). Environmental Sociology. The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, W., and Raman, S. (2014). The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: Challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sciences, 47(4), 387–402.Google Scholar
Quitzau, M.-B., Hoffmann, B., and Elle, M. (2012). Local niche planning and its strategic implications for implementation of energy efficient technology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1049–1058.Google Scholar
Raven, R., Kern, F., Smith, A., Jacobsson, S., and Verhees, B. (2016). The politics of innovation spaces for low-carbon energy: Introduction to the special issue. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 101–110.Google Scholar
Raven, R. P., Heiskanen, E., Lovio, R., Hodson, M., and Brohmann, B. (2008). The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(6), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohracher, H. (2008). Energy systems in transition: Contributions from social sciences. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 9(2–3), 144–161.Google Scholar
Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schot, J., and Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554.Google Scholar
Schreuer, A., Ornetzeder, M., and Rohracher, H. (2010). Negotiating the local embedding of socio-technical experiments: A case study in fuel cell technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22, 729–743.Google Scholar
Späth, P., and Rohracher, H. (2010). ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39, 449–458.Google Scholar
Vedung, E. (1997). Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Vedung, E. (2006). Evaluation research. In Peters, B.G., and Pierre, J. (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. London, Sage Publications, 397-416.Google Scholar
Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., and Schliwa, G. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by