IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v115y2017icp198-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social construction of stormwater control measures in Melbourne and Copenhagen: A discourse analysis of technological change, embedded meanings and potential mainstreaming

Author

Listed:
  • Madsen, Herle Mo
  • Brown, Rebekah
  • Elle, Morten
  • Mikkelsen, Peter Steen

Abstract

Urban stormwater systems in cities around the world are challenged by urbanization and climate change, and a range of Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) are being implemented as solutions to these challenges. We developed a conceptual framework of technological stabilization based on Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) and Transition Science, and conducted 16 in-depth actor interviews as a basis for mapping the historical development of in the two cities. The SCMs applied in Melbourne and Copenhagen are similar, but using a new framework for technological stabilization we identify differences in their application due to different physical, organizational and cultural contexts in the two cities, drought being the main driver during the past decade in Melbourne (1997–2010) and pluvial flooding in Copenhagen (2007-). In Melbourne there is currently a strong integrated understanding of SCMs: after decades of “new technology” development, “testing” and “opportunity” seeking a large degree of “agreement” about stormwater management as a mainstreamed professional practice has arisen. In Copenhagen there are currently multiple conflicting understandings of SCMs and signs of an emerging integrated understanding that offers “opportunities” for further development and implementation. It is clear from Melbourne's history that: successful full scale demonstration projects supported and developed by a wide range of actors helps building a common vision for SCM technologies, supportive policies across several governmental levels provide incentives for implementation, and inclusive actions in the closure process provides a sense of ownership for SCM technologies across disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Madsen, Herle Mo & Brown, Rebekah & Elle, Morten & Mikkelsen, Peter Steen, 2017. "Social construction of stormwater control measures in Melbourne and Copenhagen: A discourse analysis of technological change, embedded meanings and potential mainstreaming," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 198-209.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:198-209
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516304024
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jens Stissing Jensen & Erik Hagelskjær Lauridsen & Chiara Farné Fratini & Birgitte Hoffmann, 2015. "Harbour Bathing and the Urban Transition of Water in Copenhagen: Junctions, Mediators, and Urban Navigations," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(3), pages 554-570, March.
    2. James M. Gaines, 2016. "Flooding: Water potential," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7594), pages 54-55, March.
    3. Trevor Pinch, 2010. "On making infrastructure visible: putting the non-humans to rights," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 77-89, January.
    4. Rutger Brugge & Jan Rotmans, 2007. "Towards transition management of European water resources," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(1), pages 249-267, January.
    5. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    6. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    7. de Haan, Fjalar J. & Ferguson, Briony C. & Adamowicz, Rachelle C. & Johnstone, Phillip & Brown, Rebekah R. & Wong, Tony H.F., 2014. "The needs of society: A new understanding of transitions, sustainability and liveability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 121-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elers, Phoebe & Derrett, Sarah & Emery, Tepora & Chambers, Tim, 2024. "‘Barely keeping the wheels on the trolley’: A qualitative study of the New Zealand COVID Tracer App," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 356(C).
    2. Marcin Cholewa & Farid Mammadov & Agnieszka Nowaczek, 2022. "The obstacles and challenges of transition towards a renewable and sustainable energy system in Azerbaijan and Poland," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 35(1), pages 155-169, March.
    3. Md Nadiruzzaman & Jürgen Scheffran & Hosna J. Shewly & Stefanie Kley, 2022. "Conflict-Sensitive Climate Change Adaptation: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-12, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    2. Zhu, Bing & Nguyen, Mai & Sarm Siri, Nang & Malik, Ashish, 2022. "Towards a transformative model of circular economy for SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 545-555.
    3. Lara Werbeloff & Rebekah R. Brown, 2016. "Using Policy and Regulatory Frameworks to Facilitate Water Transitions," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(11), pages 3653-3669, September.
    4. Moallemi, Enayat A. & de Haan, Fjalar J. & Webb, John M. & George, Biju A. & Aye, Lu, 2017. "Transition dynamics in state-influenced niche empowerments: Experiences from India's electricity sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 129-141.
    5. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Alejandra Boni & Sandro Giachi & Johan Schot, 2021. "A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies [The Need for Reflexive Evaluation Approaches in Development Cooperation]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 431-442.
    6. Catia Milena Lopes & Annibal José Scavarda & Mauricio Nunes Macedo de Carvalho & André Luis Korzenowski, 2018. "The Business Model and Innovation Analyses: The Sustainable Transition Obstacles and Drivers for the Hospital Supply Chains," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Karoliina Isoaho & Jochen Markard, 2020. "The Politics of Technology Decline: Discursive Struggles over Coal Phase‐Out in the UK," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 342-368, May.
    8. Anthony McLean & Harriet Bulkeley & Mike Crang, 2016. "Negotiating the urban smart grid: Socio-technical experimentation in the city of Austin," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(15), pages 3246-3263, November.
    9. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    11. Nina Savela & Jarkko Levänen & Sara Lindeman & Nnenesi Kgabi & Heikki Koivisto & Meri Olenius & Samuel John & Damas Mashauri & Minna M. Keinänen-Toivola, 2020. "Rapid Urbanization and Infrastructure Pressure: Comparing the Sustainability Transition Potential of Water and Energy Regimes in Namibia," World, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Truffer, Bernhard & Schippl, Jens & Fleischer, Torsten, 2017. "Decentering technology in technology assessment: prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 34-48.
    13. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424.
    14. Veldhuizen, Caroline, 2020. "Smart Specialisation as a transition management framework: Driving sustainability-focused regional innovation policy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    15. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Roberto Hernández-Chea & Akriti Jain & Nancy M. P. Bocken & Anjula Gurtoo, 2021. "The Business Model in Sustainability Transitions: A Conceptualization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, May.
    17. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    18. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    19. Fjalar J. De Haan & Briony C. Rogers, 2019. "The Multi-Pattern Approach for Systematic Analysis of Transition Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-30, January.
    20. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "The Geography of Technology Legitimation. How multi-scalar legitimation processes matter for path creation in emerging industries," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2034, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:198-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.