Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Sustainable Technologies:Sustainable Technologies: Effective research for policyEffective research for policy
Sustainable Technologies:Sustainable Technologies: Effective research for policyEffective research for policy
Prof. Philip J Vergragt PhDProf. Philip J Vergragt PhDTellus Institute, Boston MA, USA Tellus Institute, Boston MA, USA
andandClark University, Worcester MA, USAClark University, Worcester MA, USA
Presentation for 2008 IHDP Berlin Conference:Presentation for 2008 IHDP Berlin Conference:Long-term policies: governing social-economic Long-term policies: governing social-economic
changechangeBerlin, 22-23 Feb 2008Berlin, 22-23 Feb 2008
2
1. Introduction: sustainable technological innovations
2. Conceptual framework3. Forerunners: Dutch DTO/STD and the
Austrian “Sustainable Development Stimulation Program”; the UK ESRC STP Program
4. Comparison and analysis 5. Conclusions and recommendations
3
1. Introduction: sustainable
technological innovations
• For many years, the concept of sustainable technological innovation has been investigated and tested in universities and government programs.
• One of the first was the Dutch DTO/STD program in the 1990s.
• A second one was the Austrian “Sustainable Development Stimulation Program” in the early 2000s
• At present, Dutch Transition Management is an influential approach
• Recently, the UK ESRC performed its Sustainable Technologies Program
4
Questions to be addressed here are:• What are similarities and differences
between these programs?• How successful have these programs
been in fostering innovation for sustainability?
• What can be learned from differences?• How do they compare to US programs?
5
This presentation is mainly based on the following:• Extensive, but confidential evaluation research
on UK ESRC STP• Design of, and participation in, Dutch STD in the
1990s• Rather intricate knowledge of Dutch TM.• Rather anecdotal information on Austrian
program, based on few interviews• Five years of experience in USA academia and
NGO
6
2. Conceptual Framework
• A large disparity often exists between academic research and policy making for sustainability
• Government policies to foster technological innovation aiming at sustainability are often traditional, looking for economic or regulatory incentives.
• Recent work in science and technology studies, as well as in policy studies, suggest an approach based on mutual (higher order) learning could be more effective in stimulating technological innovation towards sustainability
• Small-scale experiments (BSTEs) guided by a long-term vision and involving all stakeholders (including policy makers) seem to be excellent venues to foster such learning processes
7
3. Forerunners: the Dutch STD and the
Austrian TSD• In the 1990s, five Dutch Government Ministries
launched the Sustainable Technological Development (STD) Program.
• It was based on “factor 20” thinking and on backcasting.
• After creating a vision of the future by a multi-stakeholder process, backcasting provided a conceptual means to look back from the future into the present, and to develop short-term action plans.
• In “areas of need” like housing, transporting, or nutrition, “illustrative processes” were set up to test the viability of those long-term visions and their translation into short-term action plans.
8
Ex-post evaluation of STD
• In 2007, Jaco Quist published a PhD thesis at TU Delft, in which he investigated the effectively of this approach, in terms of follow-up and spin-off of back-casting projects after 10 years.
• He investigated three backcasting projects, two of them were part of STD program.
• He found that singular rather than multiple future visions, strong ‘vision champions’ and leadership, high and diverse stakeholder involvement, institutional protection, and continuity in financing were the main ‘success’ factors after 10 years.
• However, other determinants played a role as well, including external institutional and economic developments
9
The Austrian SDSP• The “Sustainable Development
Stimulation program” started in 1999.• It consists of three subprograms: the
House of tomorrow (99-07), the Factory of tomorrow (00-08), and Energy systems of tomorrow (03-09)
• Its total budget is € 41m• It consists of research and innovation
projects commisioned by tendering
10
• Its goal is development and demonstration of technologies and concepts
• In addition the program focuses on management and governance strategies
• It is more than STD and STP focused on implementation of sustainable technologies in the economy
• For instance, the “House of Tomorrow” implemented a number of so-called ‘passive-energy’ buildings in Austria.
11
Transition Management• Transition Management conceptualizes that a
large scale transition in consumption and production is necessary to achieve sustainability.
• To achieve this, ‘transition experiments’ are set up in ‘transition arenas’ including the main stakeholders.
• Consultation and learning are important elements in transition management.
• The program builds on STD and on innovation studies, and has a strong academic innovative component.
12
• The Dutch Transition Management program has a large impact on policy. It was originally presented in the 4th National Environmental Policy Plan in 2000.
• It then acquired funding in a highly competitive government program called BSIC, where co-funding by universities and participation of societal groups is a prerequisite. Thus cross-dissemination is built into the program design
• It must be admitted that Dutch government transition management and the academic program separated ways somewhat over the years, but interaction remains intense.
13
4. The UK ESRC STP Program
• In the UK, the Economic and Social Research Council set up the Sustainable Technologies Program which run from 2002-2006 for £ 3 m.
• Its aim was to “advance understanding of what makes technologies sustainable and the roles technological and behavioral change can play in achieving more sustainable futures”.
• Originally it was designed as the social science branch of the STI, the DTI Sustainable Technologies Initiative, which fosters sustainable technological innovation in business.
• However, the two were decoupled but close connections remained.
14
STP sponsored 13 projects and 2 fellowships, ranging from sustainable consumption to production, and from business innovation to government policies.
Most projects were academic, but some had close connections with practitioners.
An important goal was creating a research community from various communities ranging from science and technology studies, environmental, and policy studies.
Another goal was to affect ‘non-academic users’. Several projects reported close links with users, particularly when they were involved from the outset.
In a few other cases, STP projects actually drew attention from policy makers and led to rather large changes in government policies. This was for instance the case in a project on sustainable food and in one on sustainable consumption.
15
Public Policy
Jackson
Consumption Industrial Production
Young
Technological Innovation
Southerton
Walker
Watson
Steward
Green
McNaghten
SmithHendry
Frederickson
Winskel
Pearson
Mitchell
Marsh
16
Macro
Micro
Theoretical Empirical
Mitchell
Pearson
Jackson
Smith
McNaghten
Steward
Green
Winskel
Hendry
Southerton
Young
Frederickson
Walker
Watson
Marsh
17
5. Comparison and analysis
• The UK STP program was conceived as a relatively traditional research program, with peer-reviewed academic projects. Some of these projects were academically quite innovative.
• Their effect on policy makers and other non-academic users was dependent on personal and often pre-established relationships.
• In contrast, Dutch STD was a government program and contracted academic researchers as subcontractors for specific tasks.
• The result was a somewhat bigger impact on non-academic users (mainly policy makers and business) but less academic innovation, although there was some diffusion from academia to policy circles. There was less impact on civil society and NGOs
18
• The Austrian program was more designed as an innovation program than as a research program.
• It is mainly aimed at implementing sustainable technologies, like the Dutch STD.
• Whereas the UK STP focused more on wider issues such as sustainable consumption and conditions under which sustainable technologies could be innovated.
19
• Both the Dutch STD (“illustrative processes”) and TM (transition arenas) have created transdisciplinary spaces in which multiple stakeholders can interact and learn. This has been conceptualized as ‘Bounded Socio-Technical Experiments” or “niches”. The UK program do not seem to have such spaces
• The Austrian program also seem to have spaces, but rather for implementation than for experimentation and learning
20
USA• As is well known, separation between business,
academic research, government agencies, civil society and NGOs is larger in the US than in (western) Europe.
• As a consequence, policy making is more traditional, using carrots and sticks rather than ‘transition arenas’.
• Moreover, much policy making is on the state and local levels. There is probably more room for experimentation and learning in niches.
• Business in the US is often more entrepreneurial, with high input from venture capital and ‘angels’.
• The influence of innovative academic research on policy is more limited, although there are exceptions
• Most innovation in sustainability comes from influential NGOs as World Watch Institute and NRDC.
21
6. Conclusions and recommendations
• Differences in national styles and traditions play an important role in the way sustainable technologies programs are designed and implemented.
• It is hard to assess and to compare the ‘effectiveness’ of each approach, partially because the effects are long-term and difficult to measure.
• Comparative research on long-term effects of academic and government programs should be encouraged and financed.
22
• It would be an interesting project to assess the effectivity of ‘traditional’ vs. ‘innovative’ approaches.
• There is some but limited evidence that spaces for experimentation and learning help to bridge divides between policy makers and academics.
• Probably a combination of regulation, economic incentives, and collaboration should be the optimal way to enhance technological innovation towards sustainability.
