This paper explores the relations between different forms of knowledge and urban environmental policy arenas. It briefly considers the evolution of the urban environmental agenda and growing interest in questions of knowledge transfer. It then explores reasons for an apparent knowledge – policy ‘gap’, including familiar explanations, such as the problems of communicating research findings, as well as those based on more subtle and complex interpretations of both knowledge and policy processes. It concludes with some proposals for thinking about the boundary between knowledge and policy and constructive ways to enhance the sustainable urban environment agenda. The paper introduces the other contributions in this theme issue—concerned with diverse aspects of knowledge transfer in the context of urban environments—and draws upon insights from a seminar series at which these papers were first presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngoldP GSadlerJ PHillM OPullinARushtonSAustinKSmallEWoodBWadsworthRSandersonRThompsonK, 2006, “Biodiversity in urban habitat patches”Science of the Total Environment360196–204
2.
BulkeleyHBetsillM M, 2005, “Rethinking sustainable cities: Multi-level governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change”Environmental Politics1442–63
3.
Cabinet Office, 1999Modernising Government White Paper Cm 4310 (The Stationery Office, London)
4.
Cabinet Office, 2001, Better Policy MakingCentre for Management and Policy Studies, Cabinet Office, London
Commission on the Social Sciences, 2003Great Expectations: The Social Sciences in BritainCommission on the Social Sciences, London
8.
DavoudiS, 2006, “The evidence – policy interface in strategic waste planning for urban environments: The ‘technical’ and the ‘social’ dimensions”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24681–701
9.
DemerittDLeesL, 2005, “Research relevance, ‘knowledge transfer’ and the geographies of CASE studentship collaboration”Area37127–137
DETR, 2000Our Towns and Cities: The Future: Delivering an Urban Renaissance Cm 4911, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)
12.
de Wit B, 2004Methodology of Boundary Work RMNO (Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment), PO Box 93051, 2509 AB The Hague
13.
Eclipse Research Consultants, 1998Management Audit of the Sustainable Cities Research Programme report to the Planning Directorate, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1E7
14.
EdenSTunstallS, 2006, “Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science – policy nexus in the United Kingdom”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24661–680
15.
Environmental Audit Committee, 2005Housing: Building a Sustainable Future First Report Session 2004–05, HC 135 (The Stationery Office, London)
16.
EPSRC, 2004Research Priorities Version 2, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1E7
17.
ESRC, 2000Thematic PrioritiesEconomic and Social Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1E7
FlyvbjergB, 1998Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
21.
GierynT F, 1983, “Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”American Sociological Review48781–795
22.
GuyS, 2006, “Designing urban knowledge: Competing perspectives on energy and buildings”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24645–659
23.
GuySShoveE, 2000A Sociology of Energy, Buildings and the Environment: Constructing Knowledge, Designing Practice (Routledge, London)
24.
HallPPfeifferW, 2000Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for 21st Century Cities (E&FN Spon, London)
HuntJShackleyS, 1999, “Reconceiving science and policy: Academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge”Minerva37141–164
27.
VeldIn't RDe WitA, 2000, “Clarifications”, in Willingly and Knowingly: The Roles of Knowledge about Nature and the Environment in Policy Processes Ed. VeldIn't R (Lemma, Utrecht) pp 147–157
28.
JasanoffS, 1990The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
29.
JasanoffS, 1996, “Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science”Social Studies of Science26394–418
30.
KingdonJ, 2003Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy3rd edition (Longman, New York)
31.
LaffertyWEckerbergK (Eds), 1998From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21: Working Towards Sustainable Development (Earthscan, London)
32.
LewisD, 2006, “The science – society interface in the urban environment: A policy perspective”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24715–717
33.
LowNGleesonBElanderILidstrogK (Eds), 2000Consuming Cities: The Urban Environment in the Global Economy after the Rio Declaration (Routledge, London)
NutleyS, 2003, “Bridging the policy/research divide: Reflections and lessons from the UK”, keynote paper presented at Facing the Future: Engaging Stakeholders and Citizens in Developing Public Policy National Institute of Governance Conference, Canberra, 23–24 April, http://www.st-and.ac.uk/∼ruru
36.
ODPM, 2003Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (The Stationery Office, London)
37.
OreszczynT, 1993, “The energy duality of conservatory use”, in Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Architecture, Florence, Italy, May (H S Stephens and Associates, Bedford) pp 17–21
38.
O'RiordanT, 2004, “Environmental science, sustainability and politics”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series29234–247
39.
OwensS, 2005, “Making a difference? Some reflections on environmental research and policy”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series30287–292
40.
ParsonsW, 2002, “From muddling through to muddling up—evidence based policy making and the modernisation of British government”Public Policy and Administration17 (3) 43–60
WCED, 1987Our Common FutureWorld Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
46.
WeissC H, 1975, “Evaluation research in the political context”, in Handbook of Evaluation ResearchVolume 1, Eds StrueningE LGuttentagM (Sage, London) pp 13–25
47.
WeissC H, 1977, “Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research”Policy Analysis3531–545
48.
WeissC H, 1979, “The many meanings of research utilisation”Public Administration Review39426–431
49.
WhiteheadM, 2003, “(Re)Analysing the sustainable city: Nature, urbanisation and the regulation of socio-environmental relations in the UK”Urban Studies401183–1206
50.
YearleyS, 2006, “Bridging the science – policy divide in urban air-quality management: Evaluating ways to make models most robust through public engagement”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24701–714
