at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Note from the field

Bridging the gap between science and practice: an ICLEI perspective

Laasya Bhagavatula, Cristina Garzillo, Richard Simpson*

ICLEI e Local Governments for Sustainability, Kaiser Friedrich Strasse 7, 53113 Bonn, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 March 2012Received in revised form19 November 2012Accepted 20 November 2012Available online 30 January 2013

Keywords:ResearchPracticeLocal governmentsCitiesSustainable developmentInformed cities

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: richard.simpson@iclei.org (R. Simp

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.024

a b s t r a c t

Local governments must continuously innovate to respond to dynamic pressures from changing social,environmental and economic conditions in their localities. Local governments therefore need to haveaccess to the latest technology and techniques developed through research, and in turn, researchers needto respond to the requirements of local governments. In the last decades, many tools and instrumentswith a focus on urban sustainability have been produced. Nevertheless, the potential of this wealth ofknowledge is not fully used, as many tools are hardly known by policy-makers at the local level and thusnot employed. This paper acknowledges that scientific research approaches and findings on urbansustainability are not independent from political and institutional contexts. By exploring three differentcases through which knowledge is exchanged and shared between researchers and policy-makers, thispaper analyses the mechanisms to improve such “connectivity” and outlines the related benefits.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Local sustainability practice within the context of sustainableurban development takes place through a variety of actors,approaches, and instruments. In this paper, a practitioner and theirpractice is defined as a performative process of taking action.Action can for example be a) informing, designing and makingpolicies to create enabling conditions for implementation; b) ral-lying and mobilizing political community support to drive positivechange; and/or c) implementing actions on the ground for tangibleoutcomes. In the process, practitioners respond to and createindigenous knowledge and experience. Practitioners may harvestknowledge from a variety of networks and sources in order to act,and in turn they can inform knowledge through their actions,constituting a rich source for others to research. In an ideal case aninteractive loop emerges whereby practitioners act upon a science-based knowledge source and science-based knowledge builds uponthe available indigenous knowledge. Practitioners may create,modify, or be influenced by and apply scientific tools to take action.For example the identification of vulnerabilities requires elaborate

son).

All rights reserved.

methodological approaches to assess the negative effects of climatechange on human and natural environments. Scientific research onthe other side may research and assess practitioner actions toenhance the accuracy and quality of their own research, as well asto fill knowledge gaps. They may also do so to directly informpractitioner actions, such as by formulating research implicationsfor policy-making.

In reality however both research and practice communities,more often than not, operate in isolation or in disconnect.Observations can include that science takes longer to permeatepractitioner networks, is too backward (i.e. asking what has hap-pened without considering the research implications for currentor future practice), not communicated in an accessible way (i.e.highly theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or discussionintensive), does not answer the questions practitioners have (i.e.focused on questions of abstract, principle or methodologicalnature), does not consider the realities of the group (i.e. idealizedscenarios or too narrow disciplinary focus) or the neededresearch discipline does not exist within or is not desired to becreated in the cultural, regional context it requires. It has to beacknowledged however that much academic work is valid in itsown right. Such work is important for improving scientificapproaches, which can be the basis upon which research forpractice can grow.

On the other side, practitioners may not draw upon existing orevolving scientifically derived knowledge, expertise, methods or

L. Bhagavatula et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211206

tools when identifying and solving certain challenges. They maybe unaware of rich sources of knowledge, unable to benefit fromlessons learned, and may attempt to “re-invent the wheel”. Theycan also be heavily informed by pressing political or culturaltrends. As a further complication, when practical projects areforced to compete for resources (both financial and human) andbalance the priorities of various stakeholders, the additionalinterest and input of the research community may not providepractical or realistic outcomes. The required networks and insti-tutions for integrating practice and research may also simply notbe there.

To advance and accelerate sustainable urban transformation,these tensions and synergies need to be further explored to identifymutually beneficial opportunities. While there does already existsome overlap between the research community and practitioners,their continued interaction and exchange is important and shouldbe further investigated. This is important because improved inter-action between research and practice can lead to better results inboth sustainable urban practice and research. As an organization,ICLEI e Local Governments for Sustainability,1 has in its workexplored how to overcome this gap. ICLEI is an internationalassociation of local governments committed to sustainable devel-opment. It provides technical consulting, training, and informationservices to build capacity, share knowledge and support localgovernment in the implementation of sustainable development atthe local level (ICLEI, 2012).

ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the “International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives”. The Council was establishedwhenmorethan 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at ICLEI’sinaugural conference, theWorld Congress of Local Governments fora Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York (ICLEI,2012). At the time a need and opportunity was identified for anorganization that could support the exchange of information andexperiences. Cities which were already doing environmentalanalysis and applying methodologies could share these with citiesin need of them. In the process of bringing together a relevantgroup of cities worldwide with coordinated action in the samedirection, it was identified that the global environment and citiesand communities could benefit.

In 2003, members of ICLEI voted to revise the organization’smission, charter and name to better reflect the current challengeslocal governments are facing. The “International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives” became ”ICLEI e Local Governments forSustainability” with a broader mandate to address sustainabilityissues. ICLEI’s basic premise is that locally designed initiatives canprovide the most effective way to achieve local, national, and globalsustainability objectives (ICLEI, 2012). ICLEI’s mission is to build andserve a worldwide movement of local governments to achievetangible improvements in global sustainability with special focuson environmental conditions through cumulative local actions.Towards this aim ICLEI has identified eight principle goals to worktowards: integrated sustainability policy, resource-efficient cities,BiodiverCities securing ecosystem services, low carbon and climateneutral cities, resilient communities, green infrastructure, greenurban economy and jobs, and healthy and happy communities(ICLEI, 2010).

This article will draw upon selected experiences from ICLEI toillustrate challenges and opportunities from three projects andprograms. First, the Informed Cities Initiative in Europe is dis-cussed, which sought to explore, through a series of interactivemeetings, the application of two sustainability tools. Second, anUrban Climate Project conducted in India is presented, which has

1 See: www.iclei.org.

resulted in an informative study on pervious concrete through thecollaborative interaction between research and practice. Third,challenges and opportunities are explored with regards toknowledge documentation. The article argues that research andsustainable urban practice can be mutually supportive, althoughsome fundamental challenges exist to bridging the cultural andpractical gap between these two “cultures”.

2. Linking research and practice

2.1. Informed Cities Initiative in Europe: driving interaction

2.1.1. BackgroundThe Informed Cities Initiative, which is funded by the Seventh

Framework Program of the European Union (EU) under the namePRIMUS e Policies and Research for an Integrated Management ofUrban Sustainability, is specifically designed to bridge the gapbetween research on the European level and policy-making at, andfor, the local level. The initiative looks at theways inwhich differentpolicy areas of urban development are integrated with sustainableurban management (Informed Cities, 2010). It forms part of abroader initiative from the European Commission (EC) of improv-ing brokerage processes between policy-makers and researchersacross Europe (and across all fields of policy-making EuropeanCommission, 2008, 2009). This initiative has been developingspecifically in relation to sustainable development since 2007,starting with a workshop held by the EC on “Research for Sus-tainable Development: How to enhance connectivity” (EC, 2007).

The main aim of the workshop was to explore the issue ofconnectivity in research for sustainable development in generaland more specifically in relation to the EU Seventh FrameworkProgramme. Underpinning this is the perceived need to change the“non-integrated approach to policy-making”, as identified in therenewed Sustainable Development Strategy from 2006, and toaddress the associated questions of complexity, integration, andinter-and trans-disciplinarity, both at the policy level and researchlevel (Council of the European Union, 2006; European EnvironmentAgency, 2000). The weak connectivity between research andpolicy-making endangers the achievement of EU sustainabilityobjectives, and as such it is an important challenge to be addressed.Towards resolving this challenge the workshop involved repre-sentatives from research agencies in Member States and AssociatedCountries responsible for financing or managing research for sus-tainable development.

The Informed Cities Initiative, concluded in April 2012, was builtaround a series of events aimed at improving the links and theconnection between researchers and policy-makers:

� 2 Informed Cities Forums were held in April 2010 and October2011. They brought together more than 120 and 150 Europeanlocal government representatives and researchers active in thefield of local sustainability.

� 3 Informed Cities European Roundtables were carried out inApril 2010, January 2011 and February 2012, gatheringapproximately 15e20 representatives of national institutionsresponsible for dealing with sustainability policies directed atthe local level.

� 10 Informed Cities ImplementationWorkshops were organizedin 10 European countries from September 2010 to April 2011 toshowcase user-tailored support for authorities in applying pre-selected research tools (i.e. Local Evaluation 21 and UrbanEcosystem Europe), and to demonstrate in practice howresearch and policy-making can be connected.

Table 1List of cities that participated in the Informed Cities Initiative.

Country Cities

Albania ShkoderAustria ViennaBelgium Brussels, AntwerpBosnia SarajevoCroatia Cazovec, ZagrebCzech

RepublicBrno, Chrudim, Prague

Cyprus LarnacaDenmark Aalborg, Albertslund, Copenhagen, Kolding, Lyngby, OdenseEstonia TallinnFinland Helsinki, Kausaali Oy, Kuopio, Lahti, Oulu, Pori, Tampere, Turku,

VantaaFrance Bordeaux, Nantes, Saint Hilaire de RiezGermany Augsburg, Berlin, Brauhaus Dessau, Bremen, Dresden, Dusseldorf,

Eichenau, Hannover, Heinsberg, Liepzig, Munchenberg, Munich,Munster, Neu Ulm, Nurmeberg, Potsdam, Stuttgart, Trier,Wuppertal

Greece Kozani, ThessalonikiHungary Budaors, Budapest, Miskolc, Mosonmagyarovar, SzegedItaly Alessandria, Ancona, Avellino, Bologna, Bolzano, Ferrara, Firenze,

Frosinone, Genova, Livorno, Milan, Modena, Naples, Padova,Parma, Rimini, Ravenna, Reggio Emilia, Region of Campania, TitoScalo, Torino, Trento, Venice

Ireland Dublin, GalwayLatvia Liepaja, RigaLithuania Kaunas, PanevezysMalta NadurNetherlands Amsterdam, Delft, Enschede, Maastricht, Rotterdam, Schiedam,

The Hague, Tilburg, WageningenNorway OsloPoland Bedzin, Bielsko Biala, Bydgoszcz, Jaworze, Katowice, Knurow,

Krakow, Lodz, Mikolow, Poznan, Swietichowice, WarsawPortugal Almada, Cascais, Coimbra, Condeixa a Nova, Faro, Figueira da Foz,

Grandola, Lagos, Lisbon, Loule, Montemor-o-Velho, Montijo,Oeiras, Oporto, Ourem, Palmela, Sebugal, Sesimbra, Vila Real

Romania Aiud, Avrig, Blaj, Brasov, Bucharest, Campulung, Fagaras,Odorheiu Secuiesc, Sacale, Sebes, Sfintu Gheorghe, Sibiu,Sighisoara, Targu Mures, Tarnaveni, Timisoara, Zarnesti

Russia KaliningradSerbia Kragujerac, Sombor, Sremska Mitrovika, Szabadka, Uzice, Valjevo,

Veszprem, VranjeSpain Arahal, Azuqueca de Henare, Barcelona, Fuenlabrada, Gijon,

Getafe, Granada, Granollers, Guadalajara (Diputacion), Madrid,Seville, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Zaragoza

Sweden Botkyrka, Helsinborg, Linkoping, Norkopping, Stockholm,Uppsala, Växjö

UnitedKingdom

Aberdeen, Billingham, Birmingham, Blyth, Bradford, Bristol,Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Halton Borough, Gateshead, Glasgow,Leeds, Leicester, London, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne,North Tyneside Borough, Nottingham, Plymouth, Stockton onTees, Sheffield, Sunderland, Uxbridge, York

L. Bhagavatula et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211 207

2.1.2. Identifying overlaps and challengesFace to face interventions such as those detailed above, as well

as world café methods,2 online voting sessions and working groupsare “active” or interactive examples of how research and practicecan connect around a concrete program or initiative. The aim ofsuch interactions taking place in the forums, roundtables andworkshops was threefold:

� To understand the barriers and challenges of policy-orientedresearch on local sustainability.

� To share experiences amongst policy-makers and researchers.� To explore opportunities of bridging the gap between researchon the European level on the one hand and policy-making at(and for) the local level on the other hand.

Both policy-makers and researchers had the opportunity toprovide their views and discuss and identify barriers and differentconcerns relating to the usability and application of two particulartools, Local Evaluation 21 and Urban Ecosystem Europe, and con-tribute to the general brokerage process between research andpolicy-making.

The evaluation of the process of knowledge brokerage wasbased on the explorative application of Local Evaluation 21 andUrban Ecosystem Europe tools by more than 50 local governmentsacross Europe. The general intent of the explorative applicationwasto demonstrate the possibilities the tools offer by providing anassessment of European local government urban sustainabilityperformance. In addition, the report on the explorative applicationprocess aimed at identifying the possible barriers that may hinderlocal governments from applying European wide urban sustain-ability evaluation tools.

In total, over 200 cities (local governments and/or researchorganization) participated in the Informed Cities Initiative, throughinvolvement in one or more of the events (see Table 1), or in usingone of two tools. The cities were geographically distributed acrossEurope (see Figs. 1 and 2).

The initiative highlighted a number of existing challenges. At theforums for example, it emerged that current practices for dissem-inating research results are rarely effective in reaching local gov-ernments. Some were pointing to the constraints of project-basedfunding, where “dissemination ends when the next project begins”,others blamed academic language, lengthy reports and lack of focuson the policy relevance. Both the structure and the channels fordisseminating research results need to be rethought, for exampleby focusing more on new media and social networks, and jointpublications to enhance accessibility.

It was also suggested that academics may lean less towardspolicy-oriented research when the opportunity to publish in sci-entific journals is considered to be of greater academic importance.Another question that emerged was around securing long-termcommitment with short-term funding, with discussions revolvingonce again around the constraints of project-based funding. Thechallenge is to identify platforms or enabling mechanisms that willpermit a free flow of ideas and knowledge between the researchand policy communities. The role of such a structure should be toprovide knowledge exchange and transfer on an ongoing basis,

2 The world café is a creative process set in a café setting. Participants are seatedaround small tables with tablecloths and tea, coffee and other beverages. The cafeambiance allows a more relaxed and open conversation to take place. Often par-ticipants are provided with pens and encouraged to draw and record their con-versations on the paper tablecloths to capture free flowing ideas as they emerge.Participants discuss the issue at hand around their table and at regular intervalsthey move to a new table. At the end of the process the main ideas are summarisedin a plenary session and follow-up possibilities are discussed.

with easy access to the already existing body of research knowl-edge, as well as to act as a broker for developing new research.

2.1.3. Benefits of integrationThe Informed Cities Initiative has fostered continuous inter-

action, dialogue and commitment engendering mutual trustbetween researchers and policy-makers. It has worked towards apermanent and on-going process of co-operation, avoiding dis-continuous, tightly structured and focused processes limited tospecific objectives, agreed in advance. Representatives of localgovernments have put pressure on researchers to take a moreactive role in local debates and media. In particular, Scandinaviancities highlighted this issue reporting that the narrow local contextis crucial for local policy makers whereas academic researchers areoften interested in a larger (national or international) scale becauseof the way that academic research is judged and assessed.

The METRIS Report entitled “Emerging Trends in Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities in Europe” (EC, 2009)

Fig. 1. Map of cities that participated in the Informed Cities Initiative.

L. Bhagavatula et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211208

provided further evidence of a need for improving knowledgebrokerage and showed the variations in success between EUcountries. In the Scandinavian countries, there is a strong traditionof creating knowledge centres and other platforms functioning as aresource for researchers and governments. For example, CIENS(Oslo Centre for Interdisciplinary Environmental and SocialResearch), a consortium of several independent scientific partnersincluding the University of Oslo, started a co-operation with theCity of Oslo aimed at strengthening the links between the city andapplied research. The two institutions, both involved in theInformed Cities Initiative, set up a planning team Oslo-CIENS,organized a kick-off joint seminar in October 2009 involving 80participants and defined group sessions to formulate researchtasks. A report on “Environmental challenges and knowledge needsin Oslo”, identifying 11 project proposals within 9 cooperationareas, was produced.

2.2. Urban Climate Project in India: research in implementation

2.2.1. BackgroundICLEI South Asia3 has been involved in research projects on

several occasions. An opportunity to link-up with an externalresearch focused institute presented itself with the Urban ClimateProject e Building Clean and Efficient Cities in Rajkot and

3 ICLEI South Asia has been operational since 2005, working with cities in theSouth Asia for programmes on sustainable development.

Coimbatore in India. This project commenced in 2008 in collabo-ration with ICLEI USA and the Indian National Institute of UrbanAffairs (NIUA) with the support of the Department of State in theUSA. The project focused on sustainable and clean technologyinterventions in large scale infrastructure projects in cities. A fur-ther partnership arose during the project with the Centre for Sus-tainable Infrastructure Systems (CSIS) at the University of Colorado,Denver, USA through the Integrative Graduate Education andResearch Traineeship (IGERT). This partnership resulted in a studyand pilot project demonstrating the benefits of using semi-perviousconcrete solutions for effective storm water drainage in Rajkot.

2.2.2. Identifying overlaps and challengesRajkot, a city in the western Indian state of Gujarat, was inter-

ested in finding innovative, cost-effective solutions for stormwaterdrainage; an infrastructure that has been lacking in the regionalcultural context. The Urban Climate Project in Rajkot focused onidentifying clean energy and climate friendly measures in largescale infrastructure projects. During the discussions with the citystaff to identify the best possible interventions, the subject of stormwater drainagewas flagged by the city as a key area. ICLEI South Asiawas able to link the city government’s particular needs to the CSISwhich was undertaking research in semi-pervious concrete-basedsolutions. The integration of research and practicewas facilitated byICLEI South Asia through a meeting between the Centre and theRajkot city staff. They subsequently provided support through ademonstrationpilot project facilitated by ICLEI South Asia under theUrban Climate Project. They worked out the best possible pilot

Fig. 2. Map of India showing location of Rajkot and Coimbatore.

L. Bhagavatula et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211 209

intervention based on the needs of the city and the expertise of thecentre. Once a draft outline for the study was in place, a researcherfrom the CSIS at the University of Colorado, Denver, visited Rajkotfor an intensive two month period to undertake the study on thesite, while constantly reporting back to the centre for feedback.

A pilot study site belonging to the city corporation was identi-fied. The researcher worked directly with the city government andcity government employees, and the city government site andmaterial for the study. The researcher was linked-up to a citygovernment employee, who served as the liaison to bridge thelanguage, cultural and technical gaps. ICLEI South Asia acted in asupporting role having established the primary contact. The studysite and demonstration project was monitored and tested forstrength, porosity and water quality results. Researchers also pre-pared a study comparing the quality of the different fly ash sourcesin Rajkot. The results contributed to the research activity and pro-vided the city of Rajkot with some valuable information on thequality of fly ash for use in construction.

In the process of the study two key local challenges emerged.Firstly, the researcher was confrontedwith the local realities duringpractical implementation. The original demonstration site wasintended to be a 2 m stretch of road owned by the Rajkot MunicipalCorporation, which was under construction. As the work was hal-ted at the originally identified site for an indefinite period, onaccount of internal administrative and logistical reasons, the studyhad to be modified. Working with a “live” site instead of a labo-ratory forced the researcher to adapt to continually changing con-ditions. Secondly, the researcher was confronted with the reality of

the socio-economic context of a developing country. The researchercame to experience first-hand the limited financial capacity of thecity government, as well a myriad of other factors such asbureaucratic red tape, amongst others.

2.2.3. Benefits of integrationThe key benefit of this study was the linkages that were formed

between the researcher and the city government. This providedRajkot officials the opportunity to learn of new technologies andprovided the researcher an insight into the challenges on theground in implementing projects. The collaborative processtherefore enabled the research project to be modified to suit theparticular context. The resulting study was therefore both usefuland practical in drawing out and documenting indigenous knowl-edge. The demonstration model made a good case for an innovativesolution for stormwater drainage by using pervious concrete to thecity government. This is especially relevant as city governments inIndia are typically not at the forefront of technology. This experi-ence enabled them to see a “live” model of an innovative technol-ogy with concrete results and information available to them tomake a good case.

2.3. Documenting local initiatives with case studies

2.3.1. BackgroundICLEI plays a strong role in facilitating the exchange of local

sustainability initiatives to showcase, inspire and encourage localsustainability policies. It does so through a variety of media outlets

L. Bhagavatula et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211210

as the two examples above have already illustrated. Next to con-ferences, workshops, and other interactive platforms includingwebknowledge platforms, ICLEI also prepares and is involved in a rangeof publications. One particular example is the case studies whichare prepared or coordinated by ICLEI.4 These profile locally-basedor locally-oriented projects and policies that support sustain-ability by documenting the context of a policy, project or program,the anatomy of the activity, its results as far as possible, lessons thatcan be learned from the experience and replication potential, aswell as seeking to identify budgeting and financial issues.

Such case studies are one means by which sustainability ini-tiatives can be showcased and profiled to enhance the learningprocess and help to document knowledge, which is often lost oncea project has concluded or whichmay otherwise not extend beyondthe local or national realm. Local and national governments as wellas other actors are often interested in seeing the diversity ofapproaches that exist to help them make decisions by beinginformed on what can be done, how, and what works.

2.3.2. Identifying overlaps and challengesDifferent actors stand to benefit from such publications. The

documentation prepared for a wider audience allows admin-istrations to show their work within their own municipality. Theresulting reports support raising awareness on what was done andthe impact of activities. Documented knowledge, when prepared inan accessible way, can reach municipal administration staff but alsolocal and global civil society, as well as other governmental actors.For example, local or supra-local governments can present them-selves as key drivers, implementers and pioneers in local sustain-ability projects. They can showcase and market their successstories, expertise and leadership and provide a model of “bestpractice” and “lessons learned” to other local governments.

At the same time publications offer citizens and national gov-ernments the opportunity to learn more about activities and ach-ievements of local governments. Due to the important role of localgovernments, such cases also highlight how cities and communitiescan contribute to pressing global challenges (UNEP and ICLEI,2012). This is expressed in an ICLEI mantra of “global sustain-ability through cumulative local action”. Combined with keyadvocacy work such documentation can play a role in changingnational and international policy and giving greater recognition tolocal governments. At the same time, it can highlight how differentactors can work more effectively together and showcase the dif-ferent roles actors can play in cities and communities. The pro-cesses of documenting such local sustainability initiatives ishowever arduous. Here are some key points to consider:

� Firstly, the nature of obtaining knowledge requires researchand analytical skills. The collation and representation of accu-rate information requires attention to detail, careful deliber-ation of obtained knowledge, as well as using methodologicalapproaches to answer identified guiding questions. Oftenguiding questions are not understood in the fullest sense oftheir meaning. Also, rumor, polemic or political stances canbias the documentation and the presentation of knowledge.

� Secondly, it requires local knowledge and often direct contactto those practitioners who have been responsible for the per-formative action. An external investigatormay not knowwhereto start looking, or have access to tacit indigenous or locallydocumented knowledge.

� Thirdly, local actors who are being showcased have an interestin how they are portrayed. Government bodies or funders

4 See: www.iclei.org/publications.

particularly do not wish to be too critically presented as it maydeflect from the actual perceived success. This can underminethe quality of the analysis.

� Fourthly, the presentation of the information needs to takeaccount of a wide and varied readership. This requires a jour-nalistic and informative style, ensuring an informative dis-cussion. This should be less academic and more practicallyoriented.

� Fifth, accessibility is further complicated through the challengeof language. This complicates not only the writing process butalso access to the final product. In the ideal scenario, a casestudy would be available in multiple languages, which isactually only the case on the rarest of occasions. If languagetranslation is available the local language next to an interna-tionally spoken language should be prioritized. Even whenavailable there are challenges with the translation of key terms.

� Sixth, the implication of these factors is not only one of qualitybut also financial. It implies that case studies can be anexpensive enterprise in terms of working time needing to beinvested in either end.

2.3.3. Benefits of integrationIt has been shown that local researchers can play a key con-

tributing role in supporting the research and documentationactivity by drawing upon their methodological approach, beingfamiliarwith core researchquestions and often also having access tocore data and local knowledge. This is especially the casewhen theyare actively involved and familiarwith local sustainability processes.

It is often the case that local actions showcase pioneering ini-tiatives that are based on the latest scientific knowledge, techno-logical or practice innovation. However, dissemination ofknowledge from the source of local action can prove to be difficult.Sharing is important for the acceleration of urban transformationby providing inspiration, concrete steps and opportunities forpractical advice and practice guidance, and encouragement forreplication. On such a basis contacts can be established, widersupport garnered locally and beyond, and greater national andinternational attention brought to pioneering examples. It can alsocontribute to knowledge management by documenting and insti-tutionalizing knowledgewhichmay otherwise be left unstructured,undisseminated, and unused.

Case studies are one means by which to achieve knowledgedocumentation and sharing. Case studies dissect technical andcomplex innovations into more digestible sources of information. Itis one way for bridging the gap between, or better integrating,science and policy-making by drawing selectively and respectivelyon the skills and opportunities of researchers and practitioners formutual learning.

3. Conclusion

This article shows that there aremultiple benefits that flow fromstronger linkages between research and practice. From the researchside, this means putting the results of research into a local policycontext. From the policy side, it means helping to frame the policycontext by drawing on authoritative research-based insights intoeffective ways of moving towards sustainability. It may involveidentifying the needs of both target groups; translating scientificinformation from scientists to policy-makers; communicatingresearch needs by explaining complex and varied scientific dataand methodologies to policy makers; translating practitionerinformation for scientific analysis; communicating research needsfrom policy-makers to scientists; providing forums for debate andexchange to further a positive interactive and mutually beneficial

L. Bhagavatula et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 50 (2013) 205e211 211

loop; and creating sites for building long-term trust between thepolicy and the scientific community. This kind of deepened inter-action to accelerate a green urban transformation requires insti-tutional changes, as well as new forms of funding. In addition,research proposals by universities and institutes can consider theactive involvement of other non-research actors, and local stake-holders in turn can explore ways of supporting their projects andprograms with research activities.

References

Council of the European Union, 2006. Review of the EU Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy e Renewed Strategy. URL: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/.

European Commission, 2007. Research for Sustainable Development: How toEnhance Connectivity. Report of Workshop in Brussels, Belgium, 7e8 June2007.

European Commission, 2008. Scientific Evidence for Policy-making. Brussels,Belgium.

European Commission, 2009. The Metris Report e Emerging Trends in Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities in Europe. Brussels, Belgium.

European Environment Agency, 2000. The Dissemination of the Results of Envi-ronmental Research. Copenhagen, Denmark.

ICLEI, 2010. Preparing for Tomorrow: ICLEI Strategy 2010-2015. URL: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id¼8554.

ICLEI, 2012. About ICLEI. URL: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id¼about.Informed Cities, 2010. Summary from Working Groups. URL: http://informed-cities.

iclei-europe.org/.UNEP and ICLEI, 2012. GEO5 for Local Government. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/

geo5.asp.