Re-thinking Sustainable Knowledge-Based Urbanism Through Active Intermediation

  • Beth Perry
  • Tim May
  • Simon Marvin
  • Mike Hodson


This chapter critically examines the challenges for the development of new styles of urbanism that are not only sustainable but also knowledge-based. It is divided into three sections. In section one, dominant and alternative responses to the twin challenges of climate change and the knowledge economy are briefly examined. The chapter argues that existing knowledges and accepted wisdoms need to be unbundled and critically assessed to better understand how dominant models are developed and transferred and with what potential implications for cities and city-regions in different contexts. We argue that an alternative rebundling of a wider set of knowledges at the urban level is needed, to bring different social interests and visions together for a more sustainable urbanism to develop.


Knowledge Economy Knowledge Exchange Urban Level Social Interest Ecological Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We have drawn on a number of projects carried out at SURF over the past 10 years. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the support of Mistra – Urban Futures and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s Retrofitting the City in supporting the consolidation of this work.


  1. Ache, P. (2000). Cities in old industrial regions between local innovative milieu and urban governance: Reflections on city region governance. European Planning Studies, 8(6), 693–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D., & Lundvall, B. (Eds.). (2001). The globalising learning economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benneworth, P., & Hospers, J. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: Universities as global–local pipelines. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6), 779–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulkeley, H., Castan-Broto, V., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (Eds.). (2010). Cities and low carbon transitions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Canon, T., Nathan, M., & Westwood, A. (2003). Welcome to the ideopolis (The Work Foundation Working Paper). London: Work Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Centre for Cities. (2009). Cities outlook 2009. London: Centre for Cities.Google Scholar
  7. Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (2010). Never mind the quality feel the width: University-industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and the USA. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, M. (2009). New directions in the study of policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 237–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2007). Transforming London/testing London: Understanding the role of the national exemplar in constructing “strategic glurbanisation”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(2), 303–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2009). Urban ecological security: A new urban paradigm? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2010). World cities and climate change. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Krueger, R., & Gibbs, D. (Eds.). (2007). The sustainable development paradox: Urban political economy in the United States and Europe. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Linner, B. A. (2004). Must implementation lead to fragmentation? Giving substance to sustainable development by combining action-oriented, totalizing and reflexive research. Documentation from a round-table discussion August 26, 2004, at the EuroScience Open Forum 2004 in Stockholm.Google Scholar
  17. Marceau, J. (Ed.). (2008). Innovation in the city and innovative cities. Special Edition of Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 10(2–3), 136–145.Google Scholar
  18. Marvin, S., May, T., Perry, B., & Hodson, M. (2007). The MISTRA pre-research project on sustainable urban development. Stockholm: MISTRA Swedish Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. May, T., & Marvin, M. (2009). Elected regional assemblies: Lessons for better policy making. In M. Sandford (Ed.), The northern Veto (pp. 167–185). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  20. May, T., & Perry, B. (2011). Social research and reflexivity: Content, consequences and context. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Mobjork, M., & Linner, B.-O. (2006). Sustainable funding? How funding agencies frame science for sustainable development. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(1), 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newfield, C. (2003). Ivy and industry: Business and the making of the American University: 1880–1980. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Perry, B. (2006). Science, society and the university. Social Epistemology, 20(3–4), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perry, B., & May, T. (2006). Excellence, relevance and the university: The ‘Missing Middle’ in socio-economic engagement. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 4(3), 69–92.Google Scholar
  27. Perry, B., & May, T. (2007). Governance, science policy and regions: Introduction. Regional Studies, 41(8), 1039–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perry, B., & May, T. (2010). Urban knowledge exchange: Devilish dichotomies and active intermediation. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 1(1–2), 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pickerill, J., & Maxey, L. (Ed.). (2009). Low impact development: The future in our hands. Accessed 15 June 2012.
  30. Scott, A. (1998). Regions and the world economy: The coming shape of global production, competition, and political order. Buckingham: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Simmie, J. (2002). Trading places: Competitive cities in the global economy. European Planning Studies, 10(2), 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Storper, M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(2), 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SURF. (2009). Active intermediaries for effective knowledge exchange. SURF Pamphlet 1. Manchester: SURF.Google Scholar
  34. Swyndegouw, E. (2007). Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition. In R. Krueger & D. Gibbs (Eds.), The sustainable development paradox: Urban political economy in the United States and Europe (pp. 13–40). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  35. While, A., Jonas, A. E. G., & Gibbs, D. (2010). From sustainable development to carbon control: Eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., & Baum, S. (Eds.). (2008). Knowledge-based urban development. Planning and applications in the information era. London: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth Perry
    • 1
  • Tim May
    • 1
  • Simon Marvin
    • 2
  • Mike Hodson
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional FuturesUniversity of Salford ManchesterSalford, Greater ManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of GeographyDurham Energy Institute, Science LaboratoriesDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations