Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations

Gregory P Trencher (1) Masaru Yarime (2) Ali Kharrazi (3) Manuscript accepted for Journal of Cleaner Production (2013 Volume 50) Special Edition on Sustainable Urban Transformations Please refer to final published manuscript online at the Journal of Cleaner Production Cite as: Trencher, G., Y. Masaru, A. Kharrazi (2013) Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production 50: 40-55. (1) Gregory Trencher (Corresponding Author) Graduate Programme in Sustainability Science Graduate School of Frontier Sciences University of Tokyo trencher@sustainability.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp (2) Masaru Yarime Associate Professor University of Tokyo (3) Ali Kharrazi Graduate Programme in Sustainability Science Graduate School of Frontier Sciences University of Tokyo Abstract: This paper attempts to 'connect the dots' between several cases and provide a comprehensive global analysis of the trend of universities reaching across campus boundaries to form partnerships with government, industry and civic organisations to drive an urban sustainability transformation. We refer to this emerging academic function as 'co-creation for sustainability'. Our paper consists of three sections. In the first, we interpret this trend from a socio- historical perspective based on previous social contributions of the university. Secondly, we conduct a macro-level empirical analysis based upon 27 partnerships from Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Here we propose a framework for analysing and comparing key characteristics and commonalties across a large range of cases. We then supplement this with a micro-level study of two case studies from Switzerland and the USA (2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel programme by Novatlantis and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) domain and Rust to Green Utica by Cornell University). Here we examine closer the specific characteristics, processes, key outcomes and challenges encountered in each partnership. It is expected that this study can provide a valuable contribution to what is potentially a new area of academic research and a powerful way of advancing urban sustainability transformations. Keywords: sustainability; co-creation; university; collaboration; partnership; urban transformation.

Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations Gregory Trencher, Masaru Yarime, Ali Kharrazi Main text word count: 9384 (not including abstract, acknowledgements, appendix, references or tables)

1. Introduction The global transition to a sustainable society will ultimately be the sum of a decentralised transformation carried out by countless individual communities and regions across the planet. With human society predominantly concentrated in urban centres, the main arena for this transformation will be cities and towns (Clark, 2003; Newton and Bai, 2008). As testified by programmes such as the Climate Positive Development Program of the Clinton Climate Initiative, Transition Towns and various programmes of the ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, expectations are mounting concerning the ability of individual towns and cities to bring about their own transformation.

As a powerful generator of both technological and social innovation (Cortese, 2009; MGonigle and Starke, 2006), in addition to an innate ability to function on local, national and international scales and link vast areas of expertise and activities across society (Arbo and Benneworth, 2007), the university could potentially play a central role in this transformative process. This has already been pointed out by scholars arguing that university collaborations with industry, government and community (i.e. cross-sector or multi-actor) could significantly contribute to a local or regional transition to sustainability (Bardaglio, 2009; Clark and Holiday, 2006; Molnar et al., 2011; Whitmer et al. 2010; Yarime et al., 2012). Concretely, this is achieved by the university collaborating with diverse partners and stakeholders to develop, test and then diffuse in a specific locality, city or region the various technological, social and policy solutions required to drive the physical transformation of the urban environment. In an urban context, these partnerships could address areas such as energy efficiency, renewables and smart grids, mobility, water, agriculture and green spaces, in addition to infrastructure and the built environment. The logic behind this call for collaboration is the recognition that no single actor or organisation possesses

the all encompassing knowledge, resources or capacity to solve complex, interwoven sustainability problems on their own (Klein et al., 2001; Sehested, 2003).

In this exploratory paper, we compile empirical evidence from around the globe to demonstrate that the academic function of cross-sector sustainability partnerships, which we refer to as co-creation1 for sustainability (Trencher and Yarime, 2012), harbours significant potential to advance sustainable urban transformations. With a particular focus on the role of the university or academic research institute, we are essentially describing a radical paradigm shift in the academy. That is, a shift from the idea of merely contributing to economic and societal development via technology transfer, to collaborating with diverse external actors to create societal transformations in view of materialising sustainable development.

Until now, several studies have been conducted on the potential of individual university partnerships to contribute to the sustainable transformation of a specific urban location (Bardaglio, 2009; Molnar et al., 2011; Pothukuchi, 2011; Stephens et al., 2009; Valkering et al., 2012). Yet this literature has two major limitations. Firstly, there has been no attempt to join the dots between a significant number of individual cases and provide a comprehensive, global analysis of commonalities, differences and key characteristics. Secondly, with the exception of the Molnar et al. (2011) study, there has also been little attempt to interpret the trend of academic sustainability partnerships from a broader socio-historical perspective regarding the ever-evolving social functions and missions of the modern university.

Therefore, the aim of this paper is twofold. It seeks firstly to interpret the significance of the function of co-creation for sustainability from a broader, historical perspective. Secondly, it seeks to bring attention to several collaborations yet to be analysed by the literature and to identify key traits and differences by proposing an analytical framework that may aid future empirical studies. Our paper is guided by the following research questions:

The authors are indebted to Derk Loorbach for help articulating this function.

What is the significance of academic sustainability partnerships from the perspective of sustainability and the universitys societal contributions until now?

Are there any commonalities and key characteristics identifiable in different cases across the world?

How do such collaborations form, develop and prosper, and by what processes do they attempt to achieve their objectives?

To this end, the paper is structured as follows. In the next section we address the first research question and draw upon a diverse range of literature to interpret the worldwide trend of universities reaching across campus boundaries to collaboratively bring about the sustainable transformation of a particular location. In Section 3 we introduce our empirical research based upon an inventory of 27 partnerships from Asia, Europe and North America. Here we tackle the second research question by proposing a framework for analysing and comparing key characteristics and apply this to 16 partnerships. Section 4 then deals with the third research question and supplements this macro-level empirical research with a micro analysis of two case studies from Switzerland and the USA (2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel programme by Novatlantis and the domain of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH); and Rust to Green Utica by Cornell University). Here we examine closer the specific characteristics, processes, key outcomes and challenges encountered in each partnership. The final section finishes with conclusions and areas for future research.

2. Background

2.1 Place, problem-solving and the university

The notion of a university applying its resources to the needs of the community and solving of real-world problems has a long and well established history (Alperovitz, 2008). The U.S. land-grant institutions established since 1862 and accompanying agricultural experiment stations and cooperative extensions are testimony to this. Functioning as a knowledge-transfer mechanism and portal through which scientists,

farmers, engineers and government representatives could interact, experiment stations and cooperative extension programs became laboratories and diffusers of cutting-edge techniques and technologies in fields such as agriculture and mining (Molnar et al., 2011). It is this role that, according to some, has profoundly influenced the prosperity of rural America (McDowell, 2001).

In modern times, with the dwindling economic importance of agriculture and the rise of high-tech industry and the knowledge economy (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2002, Slaughter and Rhoades 2004), the universitys social contribution is increasingly regarded as economic or industrial (Vorley and Nelles, 2008). Fuelled by a rise in federal research expenditures since WWII, and coupled with an impressive history of contributing to industrial innovation in numerous fields such as electrical, chemical and aeronautical engineering, medicine and computer science (Mowrey et al., 2004; Nelson; 2004), the American research university was well poised to play a pivotal role in the rise of bio-technology and IT since the 1970s. This contribution has resulted in a so-called second academic revolution out of which has emerged the entrepreneurial university (Etzowitz, 2002). In this new prototype, technology transfer to existing industry via patenting and licensing, along with the creation of new venture firms and technology parks has become standard practice and emblematic of an engaged, global research university.

Despite the success of programmes in prestigious American research universities such as MIT and Stanford, this current model of entrepreneurialism and technology transfer seems largely unsuited to the task of spurring green innovation and broader socio-technical collaborations required for the urban transition to sustainability (Yarime et al., 2012). Essentially, this is for the simple fact that the vast majority of patenting and licensing activities is taking place in limited fields such as biotechnology, medicine, pharmaceuticals and certain fields of engineering such as computer science (Mowrey et al., 2004; Shane, 2005). Other issues, too, suggest this models limited capacity to address the complex task of bringing together diverse public and private partners and stakeholders to the goal of triggering a shift towards urban sustainability. These include an overwhelming focus on profitmaking (Bok, 2003; Thursby et al., 2001) and Business As Usual development, the aggressive assertion of intellectual property rights over scientific inventions which impedes 5

widespread diffusion (Bulut and Moschini, 2009; Mowery, 2007; Nelson, 2004) and the limited involvement of civic society in the technology transfer process (Yang and Holgaard, 2012). From other perspectives still, the suitability and logic of this paradigm of propriety science and technology transfer has been criticized from scientific (David, 2003; Nelson, 2004), ethical (Bok, 2003, Editorial, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004) and economic points of view (David, 2003; Kenney and Patton, 2009; Mowery et al., 2004). In addition to these concerns, other criticisms have been directed at structural characteristics of the modern university, with many calling for a new prototype of academic science for the new millennium. Modernist traits called into question include the universitys commitment to separate academic disciplines and specialised, fragmented knowledge (Ford, 2002; Orr, 1994; MGonigle and Stark, 2006; Taylor, 2009), its tendency to study the problems of society rather than generate concrete solutions (Clark and Holiday, 2006) and its disregard for place-based, real-world problem solving and engaged research (Crow, 2010; Ford, 2002; Orr, 1994; Taylor, 2009). In brief, there has thus been a call for the academy to break away from the traditional norms of science and take appropriate measures to generate concrete solutions to complex sustainability challenges (Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006). This has led to an increasing importance attached to place-based, action-orientated research and transdisciplinary collaborations with external actors from government, industry and the community (Bardaglio, 2009; Clark and Holiday, 2006; Klein et al., 2001; Whitmer et al., 2010).

It is thus from this socio-historical context just described above that the university has been pushed to find a new model of science and engagement with society, one more aligned to the chronic sustainability problems of the 21st century. 2.2 Co-creation for sustainability: an emerging new academic function?

As mentioned above, the idea of collaborating with others outside of academia in order to tackle real-world problems in the community and utilise the local environs as a living laboratory is clearly a historical extension or re-incarnation of the land-

grant mission (Molnar et al., 2011). In other ways, intimate collaborations with industry and government observed in our empirical research are a clear manifestation of the triple-helix relations observed by Etzkowitz et al. (2000). From another vantage still, the act of the university working with partners to revitalise or develop a neighbourhood is a well-established and documented trend in the urban reform literature (see Wiewel and Perry, 2008). Yet none of these prior historical functions or trends seem to capture the ambition, scale, objectives and particular focus on sustainability observed in many of the cases forming our worldwide analysis of crosssector university partnerships for advancing urban sustainability. To cite a few examples, the University of Strathclyde is spearheading a cross-sector initiative to make the city of Glasgow one of Europes most sustainable cities within 10 years (Glasgow City Council). In conjunction with numerous private and public partners, Novatlantis and the ETH domain are currently using the cities of Basel, Zurich and Geneva as test beds for innovative sustainability experiments in the building, transport and urban planning sector as they pursue the materialisation of the Swiss 2000 Watt Society; and Cornell University and Oberlin College are separately engaged in ambitious attempts to convert rust-towns to exportable models of green, post-fossil fuel prosperity.

From this perspective, it could therefore be the case that the vast array of partnerships collated in the following section are signifying a further evolution in the numerous functions of the universityone stemming from an accentuation of other historical roles. That is, in addition to the widely encouraged role of contributing to society through economic development (Yusuf and Nabeshima, 2007), many universities are now assuming a highly ambitious role of collaborating with diverse social actors to create societal transformations in the goal of bringing about the sustainable transformation of a particular locality, city or region. The roots of this function of cocreation for sustainability clearly extend back to prior collaborative roles conducted outside of the context of sustainability such as the land-grant system, triple helix partnerships, urban reform and real estate development projects. Yet in defining the role of co-creation for sustainability, we are drawing attention to a distinct integration of the principles of sustainable development and a creative function taking place not merely in service to industry or to the economybut to sustainability.

3. Analytical framework 3.1 Overview In this third section, we address our second research question: Are there any commonalities and key characteristics identifiable in different cases across the world? By doing so, we seek to lay the theoretical and empirical foundations for any future research in this field. This framework has essentially emerged as a response to the following five questions that we felt were crucial to understanding the various dimensions of cross-sector university partnerships for urban sustainability transformations and identifying commonalties and differences: (1) What are the particular sustainability areas targeted? (2) What is the scale of the geographic location targeted? (3) Which actors from the university initiate and drive the collaboration? (4) Why was the partnership formed? (5) By what role does the collaboration seek to achieve its objectives? The formulation of these questions, as well as the theory generated by the respective answers has been aided with insights from the literature. For example, we are building upon previous attempts to analyse commonalties in sample pools of university partnerships for urban reform (Hoereth et al., 2007) and non-academic sustainability experiments (Bai et al., 2010). Despite the utility of these previous studies, from the context of our study a few shortfalls need to be pointed out. Firstly, neither of these existing methodologies can generate answers to the five questions outlined above. Secondly, neither can they describe the vast array of unique and diverse characteristics observed in the specifically academic-driven sustainability partnerships forming our empirical research.

The macro-level element of our empirical study consists of a scan of 27 partnerships from a region encompassing industrialised nations in Europe, Middle East, Asia and North America (see Appendix 1). From this initial sample pool, 16 cases have been chosen for an application of the analytical framework and insertion into Tables 2 & 3. These cases are those for which data in the form of documents, publications and personal communications with key persons sufficed for the application of all five levels of the framework. To qualify for our study, all collaborations have satisfied the following criteria, designed to ensure a consistent focus across our study. They must:

1. Have the objective of advancing a physical and sustainable transformation of a specific urban location in an industrialised nation, or be focused upon generating concrete solutions to assist this transition. 2. Involve partners from academia, industry, government and, in some cases, the community. 3. Be led by a university2, or, in conjunction with other partners, the university must have at least an equal leadership role. Regarding limitations of this empirical work, although we have attempted to include as many partnerships as we could find satisfying the above criteria, many cases have undoubtedly escaped our attention. Also, as our research is concerned particularly with the role of universities, we have overlooked the diverse and significant efforts of community colleges and partnerships driven by government, industry or civic organisations. Therefore, the analytical framework summarised in Table 1 below and described in the following sub-sections is only intended as a contribution to a new area of academic research that we believe could develop greatly in the years to come.
Table 1: Summary of five-level framework

SCOPE (WHAT?)

TARGET (WHERE?)

KEY ACTORS (WHO?)

MOTIVATION (WHY?) 1. Missional 2. Funding 3. Scientific/scholarly 4. Social contribution/ community relations 5. Developmental/strategic 6. Entrepreneurial

ROLE (HOW?) 1. Inventor/innovator 2. Revitaliser/retrofitter 3. Builder/developer 4. Director/linker 5. Scientific advisor/ communicator 6. Facilitator/empowerer

1. Comprehensive 2. Focused

1. Local 2. Regional 3. National 4. International

1. Faculty/researchers 2. Administration 3. Students 4. Bridging organisations

In this study university refers to any 4-year PhD granting academic institution; a definition also encompassing many US colleges.

Table 2: COMPREHENSIVE collaborations

Academic Institution(s) Timeframe & Status

Project Name

Target Area

Analytical Framework*

Objective & Description

Main Partners

Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration ENGLAND: Coventry City Target: local Motivation: developmental/strategic, entrepreneurial Role: inventor/innovator, builder/developer, director/linker Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration 2011 n/a** Status: ongoing

City Lab Coventry

Coventry University

Initiative to establish Coventry City as a test-bed, incubation hub and international showcase for low carbon innovation. With university owning 90% of land in city centre, aims to utilise this entirety as test environment to trigger transformation to smart city. Focus areas: digital media, low carbon vehicles, integrated transport and logistics, ageing community, low impact buildings, sustainable agriculture and food, green start ups and technology park.

European Network of Living Labs, Coventry City Council

East Bay Green Corridor

University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory California,

USA: California, San Francisco

Target: regional Motivation: developmental/strategic entrepreneurial Role: inventor/innovator, builder/developer, director/linker Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration Target: local & regional

2007 n/a Status: ongoing

Alliance to build high-tech green economy and renewable energy and business infrastructure in East Bay area of San Francisco. Involves constructing new green cluster zone for spin-off firms from UCB and LBNL and attracting existing companies to area. Focus areas: green start-ups, green cluster zone, strategic economic development, employment and training, climate protection/sustainability policies.

Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Hayward. Oakland, Richmond and San Leandro. California State University East Bay, Peralta Community College District.

Oberlin Project

Oberlin College

USA: Ohio, Oberlin

2008 2016 Motivation: developmental/strategic, social contribution/community relations, entrepreneurial. Role: revitaliser/retrofitter, director/linker, facilitator/empowerer Status: ongoing

Part of the Clinton Climate Initiative Global Project, an initiative to rejuvenate 'rust town' of Oberlin by transforming it into a prototype of a self-sufficient, postfossil fuel community. Project seeks to restore local economy, agriculture and forestry, eliminate carbon emissions and create exportable model community. Focus areas: green buildings and arts district, green business, renewable energy, energy efficiency, agriculture, forestry, education.

Oberlin City, local businesses, schools, colleges & organisations.

10

Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration Target: regional

Smart City San Diego

University of California, San Diego

USA: California, San Diego

Motivation: funding, scientific/scholarly, developmental/strategic Role: innovator/inventor, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator

2011 2013 Status: ongoing

With approximately US$33 million in funding from city, state and federal grants, collaboration to accelerate regional transition to green economy and hasten diffusion of smart grid and solar technologies, EVs and charging infrastructure. Focus areas: energy efficiency, EV infrastructure & deployment, smart grid, solar, energy storage, green economic development, policies, smart metering & appliances, behavioural studies, sustainability indexing.

City of San Diego, San Diego Gas & Electric, General Electric, CleanTECH San Diego

Key actors: faculty/researchers Target: regional & international Inter-European alliance funded by EU regional development funds, striving to stimulate international cooperation and put seven urban neighbourhoods in MeuseRhine Euregion on pathway to sustainability and economic revitalisation. Focus areas: energy efficiency and innovation, greening of public spaces, strengthening of social cohesion, economy and new business.

SUN Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods

University of Liege, Hasselt University, Maastricht University, Aachen University of Applied Sciences

EUROPE: Meuse-Rhine Euregion

Motivation: funding, developmental/strategic, scientific/scholarly Mode: retrofitter/revitaliser, scientific advisor/communicator, facilitator/empowerer

2009 2011 Status: complete

Local government in each city, citizen organisations and private enterprises.

Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration

Sustainable Glasgow

Target: regional University of Strathclyde SCOTLAND: Glasgow Motivation: developmental/strategic Role: innovator/inventor, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator

2011 n/a Status: ongoing

Ambitious project to make entire city of Glasgow one of Europes most sustainable cities. Starting from strategic study, partnership has created a city master plan and now focused on attracting investments and creating partnerships to implement recommendations. Focus Areas: renewable energy (sewerage sourced biogas, biomass), energy reductions & management, urban forestry, district heating & cooling, waste, water, transport, urban planning, city master plan, energy policy, telecommunications, behavioural change.

Glasgow City Council, Scottish and Southern Energy, Veolia (Source One), Scottish Enterprise and Blitzer, Clancy and Company, Elutions.

11

Key actors: administration CANADA: British Columbia, Burnaby Target: local 1995 n/a Motivation: developmental/strategic, entrepreneurial Role: builder/developer, director/linker Status: ongoing

UniverCity

Simon Fraser University

University endowment has been directed to new development of mountain top area on campus grounds into sustainable, multi-use community for 10,000 residents. Unfolding in stages, with sustainability regulations become successively stricter. Project aims to enhance sustainability of university endowment fund and demonstrate a sustainable, compact community including residences, shops, services and school. Focus areas: sustainable buildings & housing, sustainable stormwater management, biomass heating, conservation & replanting, gondola, schools and business. Various research communities from two campuses have united to develop and test technologies, techniques and policies required to address the dual challenges of climate change and ageing population. Collaboration aims to design blueprint for low-carbon, elderly citizen friendly community and demonstrate its feasibility via social experiments. Focus areas: domestic energy, senior mobility, agriculture/green zones, plant medicine, urban planning, green information systems.

SFU faculty and administration, private enterprises & developers, City of Burnaby.

Key actors: faculty/researchers

Urban Reformation Program for the Realisation of a Bright Low Carbon Society

Target: local JAPAN: Chiba, Kashiwanoha Motivation: funding, scientific/scholarly, developmental/strategic Mode: inventor/innovator, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator 2010 2015 Status: ongoing

University of Tokyo

City of Kashiwa, Chiba Prefecture, Mitsubishi Research Institute, local enterprises, citizen groups and NPOs.

* Results listed below consist of up to three of the most relevant to that case, with each variable appearing in no order of importance. ** Not announced.

12

Table 3: FOCUSED collaborations

Academic Institution(s) Timeframe & Status

Project Name

Target Area

Analytical Framework*

Description & Focus

Main Partners

Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration Target: regional

Illinois Smart Grid Collaboration

Illinois Institute of Technology, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

USA: Illinois

Motivation: funding, developmental/strategic, entrepreneurial Mode: inventor/innovator, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator

2009 n/a Status: ongoing

Aims to accelerate transition to smart grid in Illinois and make the state a hub for innovation, testing, evaluation and deployment of smart grid technologies. Collaboration consists of four components: 1) IIT on-campus construction of model demonstration of smart grid 2) community demonstration of technological, financial and policy investments to leverage smart grid technology in homes and business 3) development, demonstration and evaluation programme at IIT to assist companies adopting smart grid technology 4) Incubator, laboratory and test bed to allow companies to test their smart grid technologies at UIUC. Focus areas: (smart grid) smart grid demonstration, smart grid infrastructure, distributed generation, cyber security, community deployment, financing, solar energy and storage. Internal carbon offset programme set up between Office of Sustainability and Centre for Business and Environment. Encompasses several projects targeting low-to-moderate income homes in local neighbourhood. Carbon offsets are generated by installing programmable thermostats and conducting weatherisation and insulation fitouts. Focus areas: (energy efficiency) programmable thermostats, home weatherisation and insulation.

State of Illinois, City of Chicago, Village of Oak Park, in addition to more than 50 companies.

Key actors: administration Target: local

Yale Community Carbon Fund

Yale University

USA: Connecticut, New Haven

Motivation: missional, social contribution/community Mode: retrofitter/revitaliser, director/linker

2010 n/a Status: ongoing

City of New Haven, United Illuminating

Key actors: administration, faculty/researchers

NYC Solar American City Partnership

Target: regional City University of New York USA: New York City Motivation: funding, missional, developmental/strategic Role: inventor/innovator, scientific advisor/communicator

2010 n/a Status: ongoing

The sustainability office is leading a collaboration to accelerate the diffusion of solar energy across NYC grid. Involves solar mapping and zoning tool to determine most effective locations for solar installations, and web-based platform to assist residents with permit and funding applications for solar installations. Focus areas: (solar energy) solar mapping & visualisation, solar zoning, solar installations, state renewable energy subsidies.

New York City Development Corporation, Mayor's Office of Longterm Planning and Sustainability, Con Edison

13

Key actors: faculty/researchers, administration Target: local & regional Effort to collaboratively build sustainable food system on campus and in local community of Detroit. In addition to several student-run vegetable and herb gardens on campus, weekly farmers market and local produce selling initiatives aim to stimulate local, sustainable consumption. Focus areas: (sustainable food system) sustainable agriculture, local and sustainable consumption. Local community organizations, City of Detroit and City associations.

SEED Wayne

Wayne State University

USA: Michigan, Detroit

Motivation: scientific/scholarly, social contribution/community relations, developmental/strategic Role: inventor/innovator, director/linker, facilitator/empowerer

2008 n/a Status: ongoing

Key actors: faculty/researchers Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology ARAB EMIRATES: Abu Dhabi, Masdar Target: local 2010 n/a Motivation: scientific/scholarly, developmental/strategic Role: innovator/inventor, scientific advisor/communicator Status: ongoing

Masdar Beam Down Solar Project

R&D project and full-scale construction of world's first Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) tower utilising innovative 'beam down' technology. 100 kw tower currently in construction in central Masdar. Receiver is placed at the base of tower to eliminate energy loss when fluid is pumped to an elevated receiver. Focus areas: (Concentrated Solar Power) beam down technology

City of Masdar, Cosmo Oil Company

Key actors: bridging organisation, faculty/researchers Target: national & international Responding to predicted growth of trade and commerce in Asia, collaboration based out of National University of Singapore to develop the knowledge and business tools to diffuse green logistics and supply chain innovation. Focus areas: (sustainable logistics and supply chains) assessment and mapping/visualisation tools, container packing optimisation, corporate training and education DHL, The Logistics Institute Asia Pacific, Singapore Government

SUSTAIN-Lite

National University of Singapore (Sustainable Supply Chain Centre Asia Pacific)

1. Singapore 2. Asia-Pacific

Motivation: missional, developmental/strategic, entrepreneurial Role: inventor/innovator, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator

2011 n/a Status: ongoing

14

Key actors: faculty/researchers Target: local & regional

SIM-Drive

Keio University

JAPAN: Fujisawa City & Ota-ku Tokyo

Motivation: scientific/scholarly, developmental/strategic, entrepreneurial Role: inventor/innovator, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator Key actors: bridging organisation

2009 n/a Status: ongoing

Collaborative R&D and commercialisation project for electric lithium-ion technology powered EVs. Flagship project consists of 8-wheeled 100% electrical bus prototype for which passenger trials with industry and government stakeholders now complete. In the goal of accelerating societal shift to EVs, now launched as venture supplying R&D and consulting services to industry. Focus areas: (electric vehicles) electric lithium-ion technology, electric bus and vehicles, behavioural and acceptance studies, consulting. Project to create free car sharing programme to reduce transit related GHG emissions in both national higher education and Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, outer Paris. Has successfully resulted in two internet site driven car-sharing programmes: the first for all students in France, the second for all residents in Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. Focus areas: (car-sharing) internet based car-sharing network, sustainable commuting

Kanagawa Prefecture, Kanagawa Chuo Transport, Keikyu Buses, JFE Engineering, Toshiba, Mitsubishi Research Institute

Tecovoiturage

University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-enYvelines (Fondaterra)

1. France 2. Saint-Quentinen-Yveline, Paris

Target: national & regional Motivation: missional, developmental/strategic Mode: inventor/innovator, director/linker

2008 n/a Status: ongoing (launched as venture)

Agence de l'Environnement et de la Matrise de l'Energie, two private enterprises, student associations

* Results listed below consist of up to three of the most relevant to that case, with each variable appearing in no order of importance. ** Not announced.

15

3.2 Scope (What?)

The first distinction created by our analysis concerns the scope of the collaboration as in the question What are the particular sustainability areas targeted? In addition to the built environment, the transformation to sustainable and resilient communities requires equal attention to the seven supporting systems of transportation, energy, water, natural environment, food production/agriculture, solid waste and economy (Coyle, 2011). Our analysis has revealed that collaborations for sustainable urban transformations tend to be either comprehensive (dealing simultaneously with multiple areas such as energy, transport, food, buildings etc.) or focused on one or two particular areas (e.g. smart grids and renewable energy). As budgets, timeframes, objectives and expected results vary significantly between these two types of collaborations, the separation of comprehensive (Table 2) and focused (Table 3) forms the first categorisation of the 27 partnerships covered by our research.

3.3 Target (Where?)

Another characteristic considered is the size of the geographical area targeted. This study has identified four: local (either the immediate neighbourhood or one area of a town or city), regional (an area comprising of several districts, or one or more towns or cities), national (an area covering one or more states), and lastly, international (an area spreading across two or more nations).

3.4 Key actors (Who?) The third level concerns the question of Who in the university initiates and then drives the collaboration? This distinction concerning key project actors is shared with Bai et al. (2010) although, in contrast, our focus is on clarifying the involvement of specific stakeholders from within the university domain. Our empirical analysis has revealed that cross-sector sustainability alliances may be initiated and driven by a combination of any of the following actors: faculty/researchers, administration, students and bridging organisations. Also referred to as boundary organisations, the latter includes outreach or sustainability institutes and offices set up specifically

16

for the task of tackling real-world problems and forging horizontal linkages between the university and external partners (Clark and Holiday, 2006). Examples of faculty/researcher driven partnerships include the Urban Reformation Program for the Realisation of a Bright Low Carbon Society by the University of Tokyo. Administration-led partnerships include UniverCity by Simon Fraser University and NYC Solar American City Partnership by City University New York, with bridging organisation-driven initiatives including the 2000 Watt Society Pilot Regions by Novatlantis and the ETH domain; and Sustainable Supply Chain CentreAsia Pacific projects based at the University of Singapore. Although no collaboration in our analysis has been formed principally by students, they too play a key role in many cases such as SEED Wayne by Wayne State University and Rust to Green by Cornell University.

3.5 Motivation (Why?)

Previous studies by Bai et al. (2010) and Hoereth et al. (2007) have demonstrated the importance of considering the trigger or factors motivating the formation of a particular partnership. The question of Why was the collaboration formed? hence forms the fourth level of our framework. Alliances for sustainability transitions are in many cases initiated by individual frontrunners (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010) or change agents before being taken up on a university level3. This implies that the motivation for a project can be considered on both an individual and institutional level. In our analysis, we have considered both. Consequently, our analysis of documents and personal communications with responsibles in each partnership has revealed six motivations differing greatly to those identified by Bai et al. (2010) and Hoereth et al. (2007). 1. Missional motivation Several of the alliances covered in our scan were formed by university affiliated outreach or research institutes established for the specific purpose of forming multi-actor partnerships and implementing solutions for various sustainability or localised issues. Collaborations formed in this context are a natural consequence of the institute attempting to fulfil its
3

The authors are indebted to Derk Loorbach for insight regarding this point.

17

mission and include Basel Pilot Region by Novatlantis, and Tecovoiturage and Urban Living Lab Versailles by Fondaterra.

2. Funding motivation In order to remain competitive, universities are constantly faced with the need to obtain funding (Bok, 2003; Ueyama, 2010). Many partnerships for urban sustainability transformation have emerged as a means of qualifying for specially earmarked green or stimulus funds from state or federal sources. The Bright Low-Carbon Urban Reform Programme by the University of Tokyo, Smart City San Diego by the University of California and NYC Solar American City Partnership by City University New York are such examples.

3. Scientific/scholarly motivation Many individuals or universities initiate or become involved in collaborations aimed at generating solutions to urban sustainability issues for scientific or scholarly reasons. As pointed out by Haberli et al. (2001), much valuable understanding can be obtained from working with external partners and trialling scientific knowledge in real world settings. The result of this transdisciplinary mutal learning (Scholz, 2000) and Mode 2 scientific endeavour (Nowotny et al., 2001) is that the total sum of the knowledge produced is far greater than that harboured by any single partner or organisation. Not forgetting the satisfaction and stimulation obtained from trialling academic knowledge in real world settings and translating basic research or scholarly work into tangible or commercialisable results, for an array of specific reasons, scientific and scholarly motivation constitutes a decisive catalyst for the formation of many partnerships. Cases formed for scientific/scholarly reasons would include the Urban Reformation Programme for the Realisation of a Bright Low Carbon Society and the Masdar Beam Down Solar Project by Masdar Institute of Science and Technology and Tokyo Institute of Technology.

18

4. Social contribution/community relations motivation On both an individual and institutional level, various actors from the university may choose to concern themselves with the sustainability of the surrounding community as a form of social contribution, or in an effort to improve the image of the university and community relations. This motive is easiest to detect in those initiatives targeted at the immediate community and especially those targeting underserved populations (Carbon Fund by Yale University and Retrofit NYC Block by Block by Pratt Institute).

5. Developmental/strategic motivation As may be observed in the developmental role defined by Gunasekara (2006) in describing the universitys role in regional innovation systems, university partnerships are often animated by a keen desire to shape the future of the surrounding socio-economic fabric. This strategic desire to influence developmental trajectories appears to be driven by a number of factors. Firstly, there is the issue of physical survival as the sustainability crisis threatens the very socio-ecological landscape surrounding the university. Secondly, if borrowing the concept of enlightened selfinterest from Dixen and Roche (2005), universities may also seize the occasion to transform the local vicinity as a strategic opportunity to reposition the image of the university and reform the neighbouring builtenvironment and economy in a manner also beneficial to the university itself. This broad developmental/strategic motivation may be observed in many partnerships such as East Bay Green Corridor by University of California Berkley and partners, Oberlin Project by Oberlin College and City Lab Coventry by Coventry University.

6. Entrepreneurial motivation Green innovation represents a new entrepreneurial opportunity, a fact not escaping the attention of many universities around the world. Our analysis has revealed that universities engaging in partnerships for sustainable urban transformations can pursue profit making in a variety of ways. This includes the development of university owned real estate into sustainable 19

buildings and residences (e.g. UniverCity by Simon Fraser University) the creation of green technology parks, demonstration centres, spin-off firms and technology transfer deals (e.g. City Lab Coventry by Coventry University, East Bay Green Corridor by University of California and partners), to consultation services and the production of business tools (e.g. SUSTAIN-Lite by Sustainable Supply Chain Centre Asia Pacific at National University of Singapore).

3.6 Roles (How?) The final part of the framework concerns itself with the question How does the collaboration seek to achieve its objectives? It is proposed as a further contribution to the four boundary organisation roles of communication, translation, mediation and implementation articulated by Lienin et al. (2004) and two roles of generative and developmental of Gunasekara (2006) that somehow do not fully capture the complexity and variety of approaches and functions of partnerships covered in our analysis. We have identified six possible roles: 1. Inventor/Innovator role Here the focus is on the creation, demonstration and then diffusion of cutting-edge technologies and innovative ideas. This function is easily detected by those collaborations organised around hard technology R&D and diffusion from green cluster zones (eg. Conventry Lab by Coventry University), demonstration facilities (eg. Masdar Beam Down Solar Project by Masdar Institute of Science and Technology and Tokyo Institute of Technology) and pilot projects (Basel Pilot Region by Novatlantis and ETH, and Illinois Smart Grid Collaboration by Illinois Institute of Technology and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Alternatively, this role may also encompass a soft dimension as a university and partners innovate via polices or social entrepreneurialism (e.g. Tecovoiturage by Fondaterra and SEED Wayne by Wayne State University).

20

2.

Revitaliser/Retrofitter role The focus here is on working with external developers and authorities to improve existing buildings, spaces and infrastructures, rather than pursuing new development. Collaborations performing this function would include revitalisation efforts targeting not only the built environment, but also the local socio-economic fabric such as Rust to Green Utica by Cornell University and Oberlin Project by Oberlin College.

3.

Builder/Developer role In contrast to above, here the focus is on new development, infrastructure and construction. When choosing this path, many universities make heavy financial commitments by diverting endowment funds to the construction of new residential districts (UniverCity by Simon Fraser University). Others may leverage public and private funds to direct new development of commercial buildings and business districts (Basel Pilot Region by Novatlantis) and green technology parks and cluster zones (Coventry City Lab by Coventry University and East Bay Green Corridor by University of California, Berkley and partners).

4.

Director/Linker role In this role, just like a film director, the university creates a grand vision (i.e. scenario) for the future and seeks its materialisation by leveraging other partners know-how and resources. It does this by mobilising the required actors and creating networks into which it feeds intelligence and guidance. A commonly observed role, many large-scale comprehensive and ambitious partnerships fall into this category including Sustainable Glasgow by University of Strathclyde, Basel Pilot Region by Novatlantis and Oberlin Project by Oberlin College, in addition to other more focused initiatives such as SEED Wayne by Wayne State University.

5.

Scientific advisor /Communicator role Building upon the notion of communication defined by Lienen et al. (2004) and the developmental role of Gunasekara (2006), we have observed a similar role in our analysis. In this passive role, actors from 21

the university seek to influence local governance structures and development trajectories by communicating results of pilot or research projects and advising an appropriate course of action. This role could potentially evolve into a director/linker, with a typical manifestation taking the form of a blueprint, master plan or report. Initiatives falling into this category include Bright Low-Carbon Urban Reformation by University of Tokyo and Retrofit 2050 by Cardiff University and partners.

6.

Facilitator/Empowerer role In this bottom-up, passive approach, the university attempts to unleash rather than impose change. It does so by empowering key community stakeholders to self-diagnose problems and creating conditions that will lead to a self-realised transformation. The participatory action research informed approach of Cornell Universitys Rust to Green Utica and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods by Liege University and partners are typical examples of this role.

3.7 Discussion

Bearing in mind the limited size of our initial sample pool (Appendix 1) and the even fewer cases to which we were able to source sufficient data to apply the analytical framework in Tables 2 and 3, our macro-level empirical study has nonetheless revealed some interesting insights:

Global phenomenon: Not forbearing that our study has both intentionally (due to our selection criteria) and unintentionally overlooked many cases across the world, we have identified no less than 27 cross-sector partnerships aimed at bringing about the sustainable transformation of a specific urban area. With several major research universities from Europe, the Middle East, Asia and North America represented in this sample pool, it appears that the function of co-creation for sustainability is relatively widespread in academia.

22

Potential for future development: As can be seen from our inventory in Appendix 1, the majority of partnerships have not announced any concrete completion dates. They are in effect committed to the long-term pursuit of sustainable development and the objectives of the alliance as long as the required resources (i.e. funding etc.) are made available. This implies that there is still much potential for the function of co-creation for sustainability to continue developing.

Key actors: With the university being a vast organisation, it is not surprising to see our analysis reveal that cross-sector sustainability collaborations are not always initiated and driven by faculty and researchers. As is the case in urban reform efforts described in the literature (Wiewel and Perry, 2008), many cross-sector partnerships seeking to advance urban sustainability are not conducted principally for scientific reasons and originate from university administration or bridging organisations such as sustainability or community outreach offices. Others still, are formed and co-ordinated in tandem by actors from both academic and administrative quarters of the university.

Motivations: Also corresponding with the study of Hoereth et al. (2007), our analysis has revealed that the formation of academic sustainability partnerships is driven by a variety of factors, with very few driven by one, single motivation. Yet the observation with implications for policy makers is that several partnerships were formed largely in response to the presence of specially ear-marked government funds (i.e. funding motivation) seeking to encourage collaborative efforts to spur low-carbon development. This suggests that the designation of special academic research funds devoted to collaborative sustainability initiatives could prove a substantial driver in the future in harnessing the creative and networking powers of the university to the task of bringing about the sustainable transformation of an urban area.

Roles: We have observed that universities tend to pursue many roles when collaborating with external actors to drive an urban sustainability transition. There seems to be no single, never-fail role and is possibly the case that all of

23

the six roles identified in our study are required in one way or another. In addition to the more traditional roles of the scientific advisor/communicator and the innovator/inventor that characterise the conventional function of technology transfer, diverse actors from the university are actively and often simultaneously assuming post-traditional roles of a builder/developer, retrofitter/revitaliser, director/linker and facilitator/empowerer. Although observed in differing combinations in each partnership, we believe that it is particularly these roles that embody quintessential qualities of the function of co-creation for sustainability. Essentially, this is due to their focus on collaborating with a vast array of industrial, governmental and civic stakeholdersboth expert and non-expertto bring about the physical transformation of a specific locality or region. Incidentally, due to the limited size of the cases to which we were able to apply the five-tier analytical framework, we have refrained from applying weighting to the various results listed in Table 2 and 3 or from deriving any statistical patterns such as those by Bai et al. (2010). However, this is envisaged as an area for future studies once a sufficient inventory of samples and data has been created.

4. Detailed case studies

The following section is devoted to answering the final research question: How do university-driven sustainability collaborations form, develop and prosper and by what processes do they attempt to achieve their objectives? This micro analysis is intended to compliment the macro-level empirical research of the previous chapter and facilitate a better understanding of the specific characteristics and approaches that differing coalitions may take when pursuing the common goal of attempting to trigger an urban transition to sustainability. The two cases representing the USA and Switzerland have been selected to convey a wide and contrasting snapshot of vastly differing forms and approaches revealed in our empirical research. They have also been chosen in light of the authors familiarity with both cases, which are well established and in mid to latter years of respective implementation periods. Data for each has been sourced from a literature review of university, academic and press publications, in addition to semi-structured interviews with the initiators from each

24

academic institution. Each case will be analysed as follows: After describing the socio-cultural context of the partnership, objectives and the manner in which it formed, we will then proceed to apply the analytical framework from Section 3 and identify and discuss the i) role of core partners ii) processes by which the collaboration develops, prospers and seeks to achieve objectives iii) key achievements and outcomes, and lastly, v) barriers and steps taken to overcome these. As an introduction to each case, Table 4 below presents a summary as defined through the analytical framework.

Table 4: Summary of two case studies

Case 1: 2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel
Flagship collaboration from Novatlantis, an ETH established platform to coordinate public-private partnerships and diffuse various technologies from the ETH domain in view of accelerating a national transition to low-carbon 2000 Watt Society. Programme encompasses various projects aiming to showcase, test and diffuse innovative sustainability solutions in the fields of personal mobility, buildings and urban development. Implementation is driven by firm political support from the Basel-Stadt Canton in the form of political targets, policies and financial incentives. bridging organisation, faculty/researchers

Case 2: Rust to Green

Inspired by theories from participatory action research, a grass-roots collaboration initiated by five faculty from Cornell University. With a high level of student participation, targeted at neighbouring rust town of Utica. Aims to create mutual learning networks and empower local stakeholders to bring about a self-driven transformation from a stagnating 19th century development model to one of sustainability, resiliency and prosperity. faculty/researchers comprehensive (urban planning and policy; built environment and green infrastructure, food and agricultural systems; social networking, education and citizen involvement) local & regional scientific/scholarly, social contribution/community relations, developmental/strategic director/linker, retrofitter/revitaliser, facilitator/empoweror 2010 n/a* Status: ongoing

Description

Key actors:

Scope:

comprehensive (mobility, construction, urban planning and development) regional missional, scientific/scholarly, developmental/strategic innovator/inventor, director/linker, scientific advisor/communicator 2001 n/a* Status: ongoing

Target area: Motivation: Role:

Timeframe:

* Not announced.

4.1 2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel, Novatlantis & Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Switzerland

2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel has emerged as one of several steps and initiatives taken by ETH to implement the vision of the 2000 Watt Society, a blueprint for a low-carbon Switzerland conceived by ETH researchers in 1998. The conception of the 2000 Watt Society was intended as a response to climate change and declining world oil supplies and necessitates slashing by a third the current yearly per capita energy consumption in Europe by mid-century (Jochem et al, 2004). The 25

origins of the Basel pilot region lie in the 2001 establishment of Novatlantis, a bridging organisation set up to accelerate the national transition to this low-carbon society. Directed by industry practitioners rather than academics, Novatlantis links researchers and scientists from the six institutes of the ETH domain with external partners and real-world, urban sustainability testing grounds. Specifically, this was to be achieved by initiating and co-ordinating public-private partnerships in the fields of mobility, buildings and urban development to test and diffuse appropriate technologies developed in the ETH domain. Also initiated in 2001, the Basel pilot region has emerged as the first programme from Novatlantis. The Canton of BaselStadt (population 186,000) was chosen as the pilot region after it responded favourably to a Novatlantis proposition to which it stipulated that any project be focused on application rather than research4. The pilot region was thus born as a Novatlantis mediated alliance between the ETH domain and local government in Basel, and intended as an umbrella for a series of projects of which the implementation would be aided by private enterprises and local universities in BaselStadt. In applying the analytical framework from Section 3, with activities focused in three areas; mobility, construction, urban planning and development, this programme is comprehensive. Centred around various sites in Basel-Stadt, it is regional in scope, yet part of a national and wider vision. Both a missional and developmental/strategic motivation form the major catalysts as the pilot region was founded principally as a means of creating an identity and product for the newly established Novatlantis platform, and also as a means of pursuing the vision of a 2000 Watt Society 5. Faculty participation in the programme is also driven by a wider scientific/scholarly desire in the ETH domain to put into action transdisciplinary and mutual learning approaches advocated by various researchers (Klein et al., 2001). Concerning roles performed, Novatlantis functions as a director/linker as it seeks to mobilise and coordinate the necessary actors required to achieve the vision of a 2000 Watt Society, whilst various faculty and scientists in the ETH domain act as an innovator/inventor as technology from various institutes is trialled and showcased in the pilot project region. Being also

4 5

Stulz, R., 2012. Telephone interview by author, March 9. Stulz, R., 2012. Telephone interview by author, March 9.

26

a supervisor of numerous construction projects, and an advisor to the city government, ETH and Novatlantis also function as a scientific advisor/communicator. Concerning core partners and respective functions, Novatlantis acts as a national programme coordinator, linking ETH researchers to private and governmental partners, as well as designing various partnerships and projects. ETHs role is two fold: the ETH board finances the Novatlantis platform and provides seed funds to projects it approves, with various researchers and scientists from the six institutes of the university domain working initially on R&D and later on implementation and evaluation. The role of the canton administration of Basel-Stadt role is to enable pilot projects in the region by providing funding, legal and administrative assistance, and also to implement policies such as building codes, energy policies and fiscal incentives required for the realisation of the 2000 Watt Society. Private enterprises assist in providing technical and industry knowledge, equipment and financial resources, and lastly, the University of Applied Sciences Northwest Switzerland, being located in Basel, acts as the local manager of pilot projects. It also contributes by providing technical knowledge, managing sustainable architecture competitions and motivating investors.6

Concerning the processes by which the Basel pilot region has since developed and prospered, project ideas for the programme were initially sourced from stakeholder workshops. Here the demand side of City administrators worked in tandem with the supply side of ETH scientists to collaboratively envision numerous projects, of which approximately six have since materialised.7 Projects have thus been created in both a push (ideas originating from ETH) and pull (ideas from the public sector) manner (CCEM, 2011), with Novatlantis committed to ensuring that pull remains a significant force. Once approved by the Novatlantis steering committee and ETH board, individual projects are then granted ETH seed-funds. These projects then seek their own private partners, create their own steering committees and pursue additional funding from industry and government sponsors, who are able to ensure that the research design and execution concerns questions of interest to them (Lienin et al, 2004). In parallel, another process by which Novatlantis seeks to materialise the 2000

6 7

Stulz, R., 2012. Telephone interview by author, March 9. Stulz, R., 2012. Telephone interview by author, March 9.

27

Watt Society in the building and urban development sector is through architectural contests pitched to the private sector. Development rights and public subsides from Basel and national sources are awarded to retrofitting and new development projects best integrating principles from the 2000 Watt Society. Furthermore, development of the pilot region has been significantly aided by efforts from both Novatlantis and ETH to increase the visibility and public acceptance of projects through both academic and non-academic publications, international exhibitions such as Smarter Living by ThinkSwiss and various Swiss embassies, press releases, dedicated Internet sites from both ETH and Basel-Stadt Canton, in addition to annual forums.

Yet perhaps the greatest propulsion to the programme has been efforts to ensure political support for the 2000 Watt Society. Promoted initially by the ETH board in 1998, Novatlantis has since worked to secure long-term and formal political engagement to the pilot region programme. With citizen support for the 2000 Watt Society resulting into its integration into the 2009-2013 legislative plan of Basel-Stadt, the Canton is now legally bound to the pursuit of renewable energy and energy efficiency through sustainable transport, buildings and urban development under the framework of the 2000 Watt Society (see URL http://www.2000watt.bs.ch/en/hintergrund.htm). This is achieved largely through policy and fiscal instruments designed to reduce energy consumption and promote green building practices and renewable energy uptake. In summary, the process of the Basel Pilot Region could thus be described as a series of ongoing sustainability demonstration projects taking place within a larger municipal transition towards sustainability, one shaped by both ETHs vision of a 2000 Watt Society and the results of the pilot projects themselves.

Concerning key achievements so far, in the field of mobility this includes the Experience Space Mobility project axed upon the development, demonstration and testing of sustainable mobility solutions for the short-term (natural gas), mid-term (biogas) and long-term (hydrogen fuel cells). Launched in 2002, the project has successfully engaged automobile manufacturers, transport operators and other key stakeholders in the trials of both natural gas and biogas powered taxi-fleets (Lienin et al., 2004; 2005). In addition, hy.muve hydrogen driven municipal street sweepers,

28

whose fuel-cells were developed within ETH, have been extensively tested by Canton workers (CCEM, 2011). As a result of these numerous, ongoing experiments, Basel has now established itself as a showcase of sustainable individual transport solutions in both Switzerland and abroad8. In the domain of buildings and urban development, privately financed, publically subsidised large-scale development projects that integrate principles from the 2000 Watt Society include Gunderldinger Feld conversion of former industrial site to fashionable commercial and cultural district; St. Johannimprovement of traffic flow, upgrading of roads, streetscape, railway station and residential buildings; and Logis Baleconstruction of 5000 new residencies (Fischer, 2009). Furthermore, Minergie-P energy efficiency has also been incorporated into many showcase architectural projects. In the flagship IWB customer centre, for example, triple and even quadruple window glazing and insulation has virtually eliminated the need for heating, with energy consumption reduced by up to 90% compared to standard performance (Basel-Stadt). Major challenges encountered so far by the pilot region programme have been reported as largely institutional in nature, with resistance being initially encountered from scientific and administrative sectors of the ETH domain.9 As also described by Lienen et al. (2004), the issue of credibility was a major issue at the outset as differing cultures of basic and applied sciences struggled to reach a consensus within the ETH domain regarding the overall focus of the pilot region programme. This institutional resistance was eventually overcome by obliging researchers and project managers from Novatlantis to publish project results in reviewed, academic journals. As a further step, it was also deemed that any projects set up under the pilot region must be first of all approved by the steering committee consisting of ETH academics and Novatlantis managers before the granting of seed money. This was seen as an essential step in ensuring the scientific quality and credibility of projects in the Basel pilot region. 4.2. Rust To Green Utica, Cornell University

Rust to Green Utica has emerged from a group of five Cornell faculty who saw an
8

Stulz, R., 2012. Telephone interview by author, October 1.

Stulz, R., 2012. Telephone interview by author, March 9.

29

opportunity to utilise service learning and participatory action research to trigger a dialogue and transformational process in neighbouring cities from post-industrial decay towards revitalisation, sustainability and prosperity. The collaboration builds upon on the findings of a Brookings Institution report Restoring Prosperity which designated seven rust towns (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Rochester, Schenectady, Syracuse and Utica) across upper-State New York as ripe for revitalising (Vey, 2007:9). Rust to Green was initially conceived as a collaboration that would eventually encompass all of these New York seven. However Utica (population approximately 60,000) was chosen as the pilot city. This was due to its proximity to the Cornell Ithaca campus, its relative small-scale and enthusiasm from the Municipality, who, as well as being overwhelmed with sustainability issues such as a stagnating economy and city centre, chronic urban sprawl, depopulation, brown fields and aged, environmentally harmful infrastructures, also had a history of collaborations with Cornell10. Rust to Green Utica was rendered possible after the securing of funding from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the City of Utica. The partnership materialised in February 2010 after a group of approximately ten partners mobilised from municipal, civic and business sectors met and agreed to collaborate for a three to five year time frame. From the perspective of Cornell, the objective of the partnership was to connect key stakeholders and existing regional actors and networks to form a self-organising and de-centralised knowledge network that would collaboratively identify problems and generate its own solutions. In applying the analytical framework from Section 3, with a focus on numerous areas such as urban planning and policy; built environment including buildings, streets and parks; green infrastructure such as roads and sewerage, system flows of food and agricultural systems; social networking, education and citizen involvement, this collaboration qualifies as comprehensive. The initial target area is simultaneously local (central Utica) and regional (Oneida County and several cities across upper New York State). Catalysed by an individual desire to contribute to societal restoration and well-being, improve community relations and utilise real-world problems to create tangible, shareable research results, this collaboration is driven by both scientific/scholarly and social contribution/community relations type of

10

Peters, S., 2012. Interview by author. Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. February 16.

30

motivation11. It is also driven by a developmental/strategic motivation as a major objective was to shift narratives and development trajectories away from rust belt branding to revival and sustainability (Horrigan, 2010). Regarding the role assumed by Cornell, this is best captured by that of a facilitator/empoweror. Informed by participatory action research methodology (Reason and Bradbury, 2008), Cornell faculty and students work mutually with key partners and stakeholders to collaboratively identify community problems and then create the research methods, tools, processes and strategies that will lead to problem solving. The university also plays a director/linker role in the sense that it is attempting to achieve a future vision by linking and mobilising key actors and creating new networks into which it feeds knowledge and resources. In addition, a retrofitter/revitaliser role may also be observed in the initiatives commitment to restoring economic prosperity and aged infrastructure.

Core partners for the initiative include several branches of the City of Utica who assists with the provision of local data, funding, administration, visibility and implementation; Cornell Cooperative Extension in Oneida County who assists with networking, promotion and implementation; 11 colleges and universities in the Mohawk Valley New York region directing academic resources in the form of engaged scholarship, service-learning and internships to identifying and addressing urban and regional challenges; several community organisations and businesses working with various tasks ranging from stakeholder mobilisation, provision of local knowledge, legal assistance and promotion; in addition to Cornell students engaged in facilitation, design and implementation. Key stakeholders include Oneida County, the City of Utica and its schools, agencies, residents and businesses. Regarding the specific processes by which Rust to Green Utica has developed, prospered and attempted to achieve its objectives, the initiative could be described as an iterative, continually revising cycle of stakeholder engagement and project implementation. Driven largely by participatory dialogue and frequently held workshops, Cornell faculty and students facilitate a process where participants, partners and researchers regularly meet to mutually define problems, create strategies to address these, and subsequently evaluate solutions after they are implemented.
11

Horrigan, P., 2012. Interview by author. Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. February 17.

31

Knowledge and strategies generated in each of these sessions are channelled in three directions: projects headed either by local government, member networks or the university. Regarding university-led design projects focused on improving the built environment, these are designed and managed by faculty and students working in tandem with the municipality, civic organisations and key stakeholders. Student participation is enabled through the establishment of a dedicated studio class in the Landscape Architecture course from which students may gain course credits for their engagement to real-life Rust to Green projects. Various initiatives implemented by other member organisations or local governmentalthough not strictly under the control of the Cornell facultyare nevertheless planned, implemented and evaluated within the framework of Rust to Green, which also seeks to harness existing resources and networks to the sustainable transformation of Utica. Additional funding secured along the way from sources such as the USDA and community organisations has facilitated an increase in projects and expanding momentum of the activity base and member network. With the number of partners and projects growing in this way, the process and outcomes of Rust to Green activate a larger system of interconnected, self-organising sustainability efforts across Utica and Oneida County that are holistically working to promote and activate a changing narrativeone moving from rust to green12. The process of Rust to Green Utica could thus be summarised as a bottom-up commitment to unleashing change from within, rather than a top-down attempt to impose change onto the City.

Now in the mid to latter stages of implementation, Rust to Green Utica is beginning to reveal tangible results. In the built environment, green design and building practices have been incorporated into the city-implemented renovation of parks, public spaces and car parks in downtown Utica. Regarding policies, the mapping of local agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption has now triggered the formation of a local Food Policy Council. This body will shape local government food policy as of 2013 and aim to increase food security and economic resilience via the stimulation of local consumption and production. Also, the establishment of a consortium seeking to channel the individual efforts of 11 local colleges and universities towards the green revival of Utica is also completed. Lastly, outcomes of
12

The authors are indebted to Paula Horrigan for help phrasing this passage.

32

a more invisible nature have also emerged, with a fragmented and under-resourced city government now communicating avidly across departments and the narrative of Utica now shifted from one of negativity to one of transformation and revival.13

Despite such progress, Rust to Green has had to contend with a host of barriers along its course.1415 These include a lack of institutional and financial support for the implementation of local, grass-root action research from the university, where an initial funding application was turned down. This lack of institutional commitment has also manifested in other forms. For example, the absence of any physical headquarters means that much of the collaboration literally unfolds from faculty and student workstations, and despite time-intensive commitments to the partnership, faculty are not exempted from usual teaching or administrative obligations. Finally, changeability of members within the local government has also created varying levels of commitment from the City of Utica towards the project. Concerning these institutional barriers, a large degree of these have since been overcome via the securing of funding from external sources and the pooling of resources from member colleges who have assisted, for example, by providing engaged student scholarship and paid internships. This said, time required for relationship-building and maintaining constant engagement with community partners is reported as a constant challenge for faculty co-ordinators16.

5. Conclusion This paper departed from two observations. The first was that few studies conducted to date on cross-sector academic partnerships for sustainability have attempted to offer a comprehensive global analysis of this trend and join the dots between scores of initiatives unfolding around the world, many of which are uncovered by the literature. The second was that there has so far been little attempt to analyse the function that we term co-creation for sustainability from a broader socio-historical perspective regarding the universitys role in society until now.

13 14

Horrigan, P., 2012. Interview by author. Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. February 17. Horrigan, P., 2012. Interview by author. Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. February 17. 15 Peters, S., 2012. Interview by author. Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. February 16. 16 Horrigan, P., 2012. Personal communication by author. September 29.

33

This has led us to firstly interpret the function of co-creation for sustainability from a socio-historical context by drawing upon a wide arrange of literature from topics such as university history, technology transfer, entrepreneurial universities, community partnerships, and finally, sustainability science. Our conclusion here was that the ambition, scale and objectives of many collaborationstogether with the particular focus on sustainabilityrenders co-creation for sustainability as a unique and significant development in the universitys history. That said, we have demonstrated that the emergence of this function should nevertheless be regarded as an accentuation of transformative potential shown in other prior roles. We have also argued that this model of co-creation has emerged at a time when many criticisms have been directed at the structure of academic science and trends in conventional technology transfer. From this perspective, the shift in focus from contributing to society through economic development to collaborating with diverse actors to create societal transformations in pursuit of sustainable development is by no means insignificant. This study has also been a first attempt to look across a large number of cases. By gathering and looking for commonalities and differences between 16 partnerships from industrialised contexts in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America, we used insights from related literature and prior studies such as those by Bai et al. (2010) and Hoereth et al. (2007) to propose a five-tier analytical framework. Specifically suited to analysing university-led coalitions assembled in the aim of bringing about the sustainable transformation of a particular urban location, we have created a means of determining: (1) the scope of the collaboration, (2) the scale of the geographical area targeted, (3) the key actors involved, (4) the factors motivating partnership formation, and (5) the role by which the university attempts to achieve the collaborations objectives. In conjunction with our inventory in Appendix 1, we have made several findings through this framework: the formation of cross-sector partnerships for urban sustainability transformations appear to be a relatively widespread trend in academia; in addition to faculty and researchers, such partnerships are often formed and co-ordinated by non-scientific actors from administration and bridging organisations; although formed for diverse reasons, the presence of green stimulus funds from various government sources has served to trigger several major partnerships implying that the preparation of such funds could encourage more partnerships in the future; and lastly, actors from the university will

34

utilise many roles when pursuing the goal of triggering a transition towards sustainability, notably post-traditional roles of a revitaliser/retrofitter, builder/developer, director/linker and empowerer/facilitator.

Although created for the context of this study and not intended as a universal framework, our methodology could nevertheless aid other scholars to analyse commonalities and key differences across numerous cases from various other contexts. That said, future studies utilising our framework would most likely uncover differing key actor combinations, motivations and roles to those observed in our study. We envision that this would particularly be the case in the context of a non-industrialised countryan area overlooked by this study.

Finally, the two case study analyses have revealed that multi-actor university alliances for sustainability are capable of influencing development trajectories and advancing transformations and innovation in the built environment, mobility sector, government policy and political prioritiesin vastly differing settings. However they also revealed several barriers, with particularly those of an institutional nature warranting concern. As already argued in other academic studies (Alperovitz et al., 2008; Crow, 2010; Wiek et al., 2012; Yarime et al, 2012) cultural resistance from within the university and lack of support and rewards for those wishing to initiate or engage in place-based, real-world solving of sustainability issues requires urgent attention should partnerships of this kind be promoted in the years to come. The implication here is that local, place-based sustainability collaborations must be valued and rewarded by the tenure and academic system if similar initiatives are to be encouraged in the future (Whitmer et al., 2010). Regarding the limitations of our study, we have focused on partnerships presently in implementation as we have found data to be more readily available than for completed cases. This possibly testifies to a lack of completed cases and the newness of the still developing function of co-creation for sustainability. In any case, the lack of empirical data for both completed and ongoing experiments highlights the need for further research into this field, as well as sharing of experiences and good practices across academia, industry, government and society. Other areas for further research could include those not covered by our study, namely, research into alliances for

35

sustainability conducted from the perspective of other actors such as industry or government, collaborations targeting rural transformations or non-industrialised nations, and lastly, those where the university plays only a secondary role to that of industry, government or civil society. In closing, our contribution to the area of sustainable urban transformations has been an attempt to sketch a concrete response to the question of How can urban sustainability transformations actually be achieved? We have also sought to bring attention in this field to the university, which as well as being a part of the urban environment, also harbours the potential to become its transformer and creator. The real value of the universitys function of co-creation for sustainability lies in the emphasis on pursuing sustainability through socio-technical collaborations formed with a vast array of actors who, together, are capable of addressing complex sustainability issues that no one actor or organisation can solve on its own. Many more years of empirical research is still required to accurately assess the outcomes eventually achieved by the 27 partnerships analysed in this research. However we believe that the universitys function of co-creation for sustainability will continue to expand and evolve. This is for the simple reason that many cases covered by our empirical research are committed to continue advancing societal transformations towards sustainability over the long-term, as long as resources are made available be that for several years or decades. Possibly signalling a resurgence and accentuation of a historically-proven transformative potential, cross-sector university partnerships for sustainability could eventually become a key component of the urban shift to sustainability in many settings across the globe.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their challenging and helpful advice, in addition to all editors. Sincere thanks to those co-operating for interviews: Roland Stulz at Novatlantis, Paula Horrigan, Scott Peters, Ben Hedstrom, Gary Stewart, Dan Roth, Kenneth Schlather at Cornell University, Peter Bardaglio at Second Nature, Byron Washom, David Weil and Kristin Hansen at University of California San Diego, Derk Loorbach at DRIFT, Yokohari Makoto and Steven Kraines at University of Tokyo, Laurie Reilly at CUNY. Lastly, much appreciation to those co-operating via email: Christian Bach and Daniel Spreng at ETH, Kristin

36

Braziunas at Oberlin College, Peter Valkering at Maastricht University, Suzanne Van Den Bosch at DRIFT. Special thanks to Natsumi Egawa.

37

References Alperovitz, G., Dubb, S., Howard, T., 2008. The Next Wave: Building University Engagement for the 21st Century. The Good Society 17(2), 6975. Arbo, P., Benneworth, P., 2007. Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: a literature review, OECD education working paper. No. 9, OECD, Paris. Bai, X., Roberts, B., Chen, J. 2010. Urban sustainability experiments in Asia: patterns and pathways. Environ Sci Technol 13, 312325. Bardaglio, P., Putman, B., 2009. Boldly sustainable: hope and opportunity for higher education in the age of climate change. NACUBO, Washington DC. Basel-Stadt, Factsheet: IWB customer centre. http://www.2000watt.bs.ch/en/factsheet_iwb_energy_consulting_gb_8-11.pdf, accessed March 1, 2012. Bok, D., 2003. Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bulut, H., Moschini, G., 2009. US universities net returns from patenting and licensing: a quantile regression analysis. Econ Innovation New Tech 18(2), 123137. CCEM, 2011. Annual activity report 2010. Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. http://www.ccem.ch/MediaBoard/CCEM_Annual_Activity_Report_2010.pdf, accessed 5 March, 2012. Clark, W., 2003. Urban environments: battlegrounds for global sustainability. Environment 45(7), 1. Clark, W., Holiday, L., (Eds.), 2006. Linking Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development: The Role of Program Management - Summary of a Workshop. The National Academies Press, Washington DC. Cortese, A., 2009, Foreword, in: Bardaglio, P., Putman, B. Boldly sustainable: Hope and opportunity for higher education in the age of climate change. NACUBO, Washington DC, pp. 19. Coyle, S., 2011. Sustainable and resilient communities: a comprehensive action plan for towns, cities, and regions. Wiley, New Jersey. Crow, M., 2010. Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. Bioscience 60(7), 488489. David P. A., 2003. The economic logic of open science and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information: a primer, in: Esanu, J. M., Uhlir. P.F. (Eds.), The role of scientific and technical data and information in the public domain: proceeding of a symposium. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Dixen, D., Roche, P., 2005, in: Perry. D., Wiewel, W. (Eds.), The university as urban developer: case studies and analysis. M E Sharpe, New York, pp. 268284. Editorial (2001) Is the university-industrial complex out of control? Nature 409(6817):119. Etzkowitz, H. et al., 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy 29, 313330.

38

Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.), 2002. Universities and the global knowledge economy: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Continuum International Publishing Group, London. Fischer, S., 2009. 2000-watt society: the Swiss vision for the creation of sustainable low energy communities. Paper presented at 45th ISOCARP Congress 2009, Porto, Portugal, October 18-22. Ford, M., 2002. Beyond the modern university: toward a constructive postmodern university. Praeger, USA. Glasgow City Council, Sustainable Glasgow. http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Business/Environment/Sustainabledevelopment/sustainablegla sgow.htm, accessed 12 December, 2010. Gunaskera, C., 2006. Reframing the Role of Universities in the Development of Regional Innovation Systems. J Technol Transfer 31, 101113. Haberli, R. et al., 2001. Summary and synthesis, in: Klein, J.T., et al. (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society, Proceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity 2000 Conference. Birkhuser, Basel, pp. 321. Hoereth, J. et al., 2007. University employer-assisted housing: models of universitycommunity partnerships, Working Paper. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Great Cities Institute (GCI), University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. Horrigan, P., 2010. Rust to green news. The Utica Phoenix, 30 December. http://uticaphoenix.net/rust-to-green-news/, accessed 30 July, 2012. Jochem, E. (Ed.), 2004. Steps towards a sustainable development: a white book for R&D of energy-efficient technologies. ETHZ Press, Zurich. Kenney, M., Patton, D., 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole act and the current university invention ownership model. Res Policy 38(9), 14071422. Klein, J.T., et al. (Eds.), 2001. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society, Proceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity 2000 Conference. Birkhuser, Basel. Komiyama, H., Takeuchi, K. 2006. Sustainability science: building a new discipline, Sustain Sci 1:16. Lienin, S. et al., 2004. Bridging science with application for sustainability: private-public partnerships in the novatlantis pilot-region of Basel. Novatlantis, Duebendorf, Switzerland. Lienin, S. et al., 2005. Partnerships for sustainable mobility: the pilot region of Basel. Environment 47(3), 2235. Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2010. The practice of transition management; examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42, 237246. McDowell, G., 2001. Land grant universities and extension into the 21st century. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. M'Gonigle, M., Starke, J., 2006. Planet U sustaining the world, reinventing the university.

39

NSP, Canada. Molnar, C. et al., 2011. Using higher education-community partnerships to promote urban sustainability. Environment 53(1), 1828. Mowery, D., et al., 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: universityindustry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Mowery, D., 2007. University-industry research collaboration and technology transfer in the United States, in S. Yusuf and K. Nabeshima (Eds.), How universities promote economic growth. The World Bank, Washington DC, pp. 163181. Nelson, R., 2004. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Res Policy 33, 455471. Newton, P., Bai, X., 2008. Transitioning to sustainable urban development, In: Transitions: Pathways towards sustainable urban development in Australia. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 319. Nowotny, H. et al., 2001. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge. Orr, D., 1994. Earth in mind: on education, environment, and the human prospect. Island Press, Washington DC. Pothukuchi, K., 2011. Building sustainable, just food systems in Detroit: reflections from SEED Wayne, a campus-community collaborative. Sustainability 4(4), 1938. Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (Eds.), 2008. Sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, London. Scholz, R., 2000. Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In: Scholz, R. et al. (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Proceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity 2000 Conference Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions (Vol. 2). Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag, Zrich, pp. 137. Sehested, K., 2003. Cross-sector partnerships as a new form of local governance, in: Kjaer, L. (Ed.), Local partnerships in Europe: an action research project. The Copenhagen Centre, Copenhagen. Shane, S., 2005. Academic entrepreneurship: university spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts. Slaughter S., Rhoades, G., 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state and higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Stephens, J., et al., 2009. Learning from university-community partnerships (past and present) for sustainable development. GPMI Working Papers No. 2009-04, Clarke University. http://wordpress.clarku.edu/jstephens/files/2012/03/Stephens-Hernandez-and-Boyle-MarshWP-2009.pdf, accessed 25 September, 2012. Taylor, M., 2009. End of the university as we know it. New York Times, April 27. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?pagewanted=all, accessed 15 February, 2012.

40

Thursby J. et al., 2001. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major US universities. J Technol Transfer 26(12), 5972. Trencher, G., Yarime, M., 2012. Universities co-creating urban sustainability. United Nations University, 07 June. http://unu.edu/publications/articles/universities-co-creating-urbansustainability.html, accessed 12 September, 2012. Ueyama, T., 2010. Beyond academic capitalism (in Japanese). NTT Publishing, Tokyo. Valkering, P. et al., 2012. An analysis of learning interactions in a cross-border network for sustainable urban neighbourhood development, J Clean Prod (forthcoming). Vey, J., 2007. Restoring prosperity: the state role in revitalizing Americas older industrial cities, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC. Vorley, T., Nelles, J., 2008. (Re)Conceptualising the academy: institutional development of and beyond the third mission. J Higher Educ Pol Manage (20)3: 117. Whitmer, A. et al., 2010. The engaged university: providing a platform for research that transforms society, Front Ecol Environ 8(6), 314321. Wiek, A. et al., 2012. From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects, Sustain Sci 7, 524. Wiewel, W., Perry, D. (Eds.), 2008. Global universities and urban development: case studies and analysis, M.E. Sharpe Publishers, New York. Yang, Y., Holgaard, J. E., 2012. The important role of civil society groups in eco-innovation: a triple helix perspective. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 4(2), 132148. Yarime, M. et al., 2012. Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations, Sustain Sci 7, 101113. Yusuf, S., Nabeshima, K., (Eds.), 2007. How Universities Promote Economic Growth. The World Bank, Washington.

41

Appendix 1: Full list of collaborations used in empirical analysis

Name EUROPE 2011 n/a* Status: ongoing Academic Institution(s) Target Area Timeframe/Status

City Lab Coventry

Coventry University European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) with 12 universities and research centres across France, Switzerland, Germany and UK, Spain & Netherlands. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, University of Edinburgh

ENGLAND, Coventry City

Climate-KIC

EU: Various local and regional contexts across EU

2010 n/a Status: ongoing

Heat and the City

SCOTLAND, Glasgow & Edinburgh

2011 n/a Status: ongoing

MEU Project

Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausaunne

SWITZERLAND: Four towns of La Chaux-de- Fonds, Lausanne, Martigny and Neuchtel UK: Cardiff/South East Wales, Greater Manchester

2008 2012 Status: completed

Retrofit 2050

Cardiff University, Salford University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Cambridge University of Liege, Hasselt University, Maastricht University

2011 2013 Status: ongoing

SUN Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods

EU, Meuse-Rhine Euregion

2009 2012 Status: complete

Sustainable Glasgow

University of Strathclyde

SCOTLAND, Glascow

2011 n/a Status: ongoing

2000 Watt Society Pilot Region Basel

Novatlantis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

SWITZERLAND, Basel

2001 n/a Status: ongoing 2008 n/a Status: ongoing (launched as venture) 2011 n/a Status: ongoing

Tecovoiturage

Fondaterra, University of Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

1. FRANCE 2. Versailles, Saint-Quentinen-Yveline

Urban Living Lab Versailles

Fondaterra, Universit de Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

FRANCE, Versailles

MIDDLE EAST Masdar Beam Down Solar Project ASIA SIM-Drive Keio University JAPAN: Fujisawa City & Ota-ku Tokyo 2009 n/a Status: ongoing Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology ARAB EMIRATES: Abu Dhabi, Masdar 2010 n/a Status: ongoing

SUSTAIN-Lite

Singapore National University

1. SINGAPORE 2. Asia-Pacific

2011 n/a Status: ongoing

Urban Reformation Program for the Realisation of a Bright Low Carbon Society NORTH AMERICA

University of Tokyo

JAPAN: Chiba, Kashiwanoha

2010 2015 Status: ongoing

East Bay Green Corridor

University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory California

USA, California, East San Francisco

2007 n/a Status: ongoing

Grand Rapids Community Sustainability Partnership

Grand Valley State University, Aquinas College, Grand Rapids Community College

USA, Michigan, Grand Rapids

2005 n/a Status: ongoing

42

Illinois Smart Grid Collaboration

Illinois Institute of Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

USA, Illinois

2009 n/a Status: ongoing

Long Island Smart Energy Corridor

Stony Brook University, Farmingdale State College

NY: Melville, South Farmingdale and Huntington

2010 2015 Status: ongoing

Model Block for Sustainability Action

City University of New York

USA, New York City, East Harlem

2011 n/a Status: ongoing

NYC Solar American City Partnership

City University of New York

Various areas across NYC

2010 n/a Status: ongoing

Oberlin Project

Oberlin College

USA, Ohio, Oberlin

2008 2016 Status: ongoing

Retrofit NYC Block by Block

Pratt Institute

NYC: Brooklyn

2010 n/a Status: ongoing

Rust to Green Utica

Cornell University

USA, New York State, Utica

2010 n/a Status: ongoing

SEED Wayne

Wayne State University

Detroit

2008 n/a Status: ongoing

Smart City San Diego

University of California, San Diego

USA, California, San Diego

2011 2013 Status: ongoing

UniverCity

Simon Fraser University

CANADA, British Columbia, Burnaby Mountain

1995 n/a Status: ongoing

Yale Community Carbon Fund TOTAL: * Not announced.

Yale University

Connecticut: New Haven

2010 n/a Status: ongoing 27

43