How collaborative research can support transition From the case study above it is possible to conclude that collaborative research

can be defined as potentially impacting on a transition via six factors whereas Geels and Schot (2007) distinguish three levels of socio-technical transition pathways: Macro, Meso and Micro (figure 5.4). The lessons from the case study here indicate that collaborative research of the type undertaken can act on two of these transition pathways: the socio-technical regime (Meso level) and Niche Innovations (Micro level) (Figure 5.4). Landscape developments (Marco level) can put pressure on the regime creating windows of opportunity for transition. Rijke et al. (2008) highlighted the following pressures for the water sector in the Netherlands: environmental awareness, a disruptive change since the 1960s; climate change, a disruptive change since the 1990s; and flood events, shock changes in 1993 and 1995. Recent flood events or even the financial crisis (2008) can result in other shock changes. Research is not able to influence such ‘landscape’ developments, but can recognize and support the exploitation of windows of opportunities on the meso and micro level. On the meso level research can actively catalyse transition through supporting the creation of new, interdisciplinary partnerships and networks. The networks can be used to influence policy, to support capacity building and dissemination for broader practice and to create awareness. On the micro level research can support innovative practical demonstration projects. Figure 5.4 illustrates the role of collaborative research in transition pathways towards integrating urban development and flood risk management.

Collaborative research to support transition towards integrating flood risk management in urban development

109

Figure 5.4. The potential role of collaborative research in the transition pathway (adapted

from Geels and Schot (2007) and Rijke et al (2008)

Using the lessons from the case study and the earlier theory presented, it is possible to stress at least one criterion that is needed for the design and evaluation of collaborative research projects and portfolios related to FRM and urban planning. ‘Doing the right research’ means having collaborative research that supports practical, innovative projects that combine urban development with flood risk management in the flood related research portfolio. Thus, research is required using and supporting an actual case study ex-ante, prior to development, or ex-durante, during the urban development project. Such research would directly support the micro level of the transition pathway (Figure 5.4). Schön (1983) stated that demonstration provides opportunities to effectively ‘learn from experience’ by ‘learning by doing’. All of the UFM stakeholders surveyed in this study were found to have had their motivation increased and a significant learning experience by working on this practical, real-life project.

Another criterion ‘doing the research right’ relates to the collaborative network and thus social learning component. Collaborative research can be a form of social learning framework. Social learning mechanisms or the frameworks of multi-party collaboration necessary to deliver social learning and stimulate interactive decision making have been given many names, such as: Communities of Practice (Wenger, 2000), Learning Alliance (Verhagen, 2008; Batchelor & Butterworth, 2008), Learning & Action Alliance (Ashley et al., 2012), socially- embedded institutions (Cleaver, 2002), learning platforms or arenas (Farrelly et

110

al., 2009). The theory of transition pathways shows how networks, developed through collaborative research as social learning frameworks, can support regime changes e.g. via policy processes. This is also called a transdisciplinary transition process (e.g. Scholz, 2000; Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Klein, 2001; and Gibbons, 2001). The UFM Project clearly influenced new policy processes and experimented with new practical approaches to flood risk Management for areas outside the protected dykes directly through the collaboration of project participants and partner organisations.

Any collaboration should explicitly aim for an impact on the transition process via inclusion of the 6 impact factors: science, practice, policy, awareness, networks, capacity building. A collaborative research project should have sufficient flexibility to seize opportunities to do this, as opposed to strictly complying with a project plan or with constricting regulations and standards. In fact, it should lead the way in challenging and setting new standards and regulations.

Despite the various definitions above, it is likely that different social learning frameworks are necessary at different stages of a transition. This can possibly explain the various names and definitions for these frameworks. Figure 5.5 shows this hypothesis depicting several social frameworks in the S-curve going through the four transition phases: pre-development, take-off, acceleration, stabilisation (see also Rotmans et al, 2001). Collaborative research would provide an appropriate framework during the early stages of transition: pre-development and take-off phases (Figure 5.5). From this, innovative approaches are being developed and experimented with preparing the way for the acceleration phase by creating networks and addressing policy and regulatory problems and finding solutions to these. In the final stage, stakeholders still have to work together and learn together, for example to deal with uncertainty, but this is a more continuous need and activity. Frameworks such as Communities of Practice and socially-embedded institutions seem more appropriate at this stage. Literature on social learning is not clear in the definitions of the frameworks proposed regarding their role in a transition, if any. It would be useful to position these previously defined social learning frameworks within the larger transition picture (Figure 5.5). As a suggestion, the figure illustrates the likely timing of collaborative research and other social learning frameworks, which are not mutually exclusive, according to the state of transition they might best contribute to. Further work is needed to develop and analyse social learning frameworks in terms of these different phases.

Collaborative research to support transition towards integrating flood risk management in urban development

111

Figure 5.5. Timing of collaborative research and other social learning frameworks according

to the state of transition they might best contribute to. (adapted from Rijke et al.,2008 on state of transitions)

5.5 Collaborative research supporting urban development