City-Level Decoupling-Full Report

social interests in the process, intermediaries may still be confronted with difficult issues and problems. This might include, for example, controversies such as where a technology development is located, difficulties with funding streams, and lack of political support. How these issues are addressed and who subsequently becomes involved and with what expectations is critical to the process. This broadens the constituency of the process of urban socio-technical infrastructure transitions. A controversial location for technology development, for example, may involve technology developers engaging with local residents, funding difficulties may require dialogue with different funding bodies, or a lack of political support may require discussions with political interests at different levels. Each of these social interests potentially brings different sets of expectations to the process of urban socio-technical transitions. To assess how initiatives from around the world are contributing to the reconfiguration of cities, infrastructure systems and resource flows 30 case studies are analysed using a fourfold framework: 1) pressures and visions; 2) intermediary organization; 3) responses and outcomes; and 4) consequences. This creates a context in which to bring together the quantitative assessments of material flows (set out in Chapter 2) with the socio-technical contexts of their development. Material from the case studies is illustrated and analysed in the sub-sections below. The full, referenced case studies are presented in the Annex. They are: 1. Auroville, India – restoring ecology and building social unity; 2. Bangalore, India – building green gated communities; 3. Masdar, Abu Dhabi – envisioning a sustainable city in the desert; 4. Songdo, Republic of Korea – constructing a hi-tech eco-city; 6.2 Four types of urban change

represent what they do with their variety of different partners, thereby communicating credibility and building trust with partners who in other aspects of their work and business may have competing interests. Symbolic visibility in the local and national media is important as is symbolic exemplification through demonstration and showcasing. This is part of the positioning of the intermediary as distinctive, as 'first mover' and the people to turn to. These six aspects of building capacity and capability for are all important in embedding the intermediary within a specific urban context and facilitating the development of the resources, relationships, forms of knowledge and communications and, thus, visibility, to be able to demonstrate a credible influence. Addressing these six critical issues facilitates the formation of the type of organisational context necessary for active and effective intermediary intervention in purposive urban socio-technical transitions. While this report embraces the idea of an ‘energetic society' that creates space for intermediaries to facilitate innovations that bubble up from below, not all societies are configured this way. In societies where the state plays a strong economic role using interventionist planning instruments, innovations can be imposed from above, complete with a set of performance requirements. The evidence suggests that both can work – China’s eco-blocks, Abu Dhabi’s Masdar and Republic of Korea’s Songdo emerged in contexts where strong states imposed the requirement to break from mainstream approaches, sometimes by copying innovations pioneered elsewhere. The issue of outcomes acknowledges the importance of intermediary organisations as agents of change. It requires assessing the extent to which the initial vision of urban socio-technical infrastructure transition was achieved over time, with respect to aims, objectives, timings, material and and social change. Having engaged with the different 6.1.7. Consequences: outcome and process

60