Energy in low carbon cities and social learning: A process for defining priority research questions with UK stakeholders

City-level decision-making requires timely access to a wide range of relevant and comprehensible data and information. Although a wide range of research on energy and cities is on-going across the social, engineering and natural sciences, it cannot be taken for granted that the questions being asked and the way questions are structured reflect practitioner perspectives and requirements. This paper discusses the ways in which research questions are formed and interpreted by actors in academic research and research user communities. We also report a set of research questions produced via an initial trial of a two stage, participative process consisting of (a) a survey targeted at city-focussed practitioners in the United Kingdom (UK) with an interest in lower carbon energy futures; and (b) a workshop integrating practitioner and academic perspectives. Comparing the set of research questions identified with themes in the academic literature, we find that research and practitioner communities concur on the importance of reducing energy demand and also on a number of cross-cutting issues. However, we also find that academic research places a greater emphasis on the interfaces between the energy system and other urban systems. We conclude that the two stage, participative process followed can serve to generate and legitimate city-related research questions through collaboration between stakeholders and academic researchers.

[1]  J. Ravetz.  Usable Knowledge, Usable Ignorance , 1987 .

[2]  Paul Upham,et al.  Public attitudes, understanding, and engagement in relation to low-carbon energy. A selective review of academic and non-academic literatures : report for RCUK Energy Programme , 2011 .

[3]  Ray Pawson,et al.  Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. , 2006 .

[4]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[5]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social Learning and Water Resources Management , 2007 .

[6]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK , 2006 .

[7]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[8]  T. Foxon,et al.  Strategic energy planning within local authorities in the UK: A study of the city of Leeds , 2012 .

[9]  Mark Jennings,et al.  A review of urban energy system models: Approaches, challenges and opportunities , 2012 .

[10]  M. Betsill,et al.  Cities and climate change , 2002 .

[11]  S. Nutley,et al.  Evidence and the policy process , 2000 .

[12]  Anders Söderholm,et al.  A theory of the temporary organization , 1995 .

[13]  L. Gulbrandsen.  The Role of Science in Environmental Governance: Competing Knowledge Producers in Swedish and Norwegian Forestry , 2008, Global Environmental Politics.

[14]  J. Holden,et al.  Priority water research questions as determined by UK practitioners and policy makers. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[15]  P. Pierson.  Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[16]  Peter C Smith,et al.  What works?Evidence-based policy and practice in public services , 2000 .

[17]  Christian Pohl,et al.  From science to policy through transdisciplinary research , 2008 .

[18]  S. Jasanoff.  Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in the Politics of Science , 1996 .

[19]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[20]  B. Frame,et al.  Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability , 2008 .

[21]  Janet Stephenson,et al.  Energy cultures: A framework for understanding energy behaviours , 2010 .

[22]  Niki Frantzeskaki,et al.  Social-Ecological Systems Governance. From Paradigm to Management Approach , 2010 .

[23]  M. Kerkhof,et al.  Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations , 2005 .