打印

作者

Ariana Dickey;Anna Kosovac;Sebastian Fastenrath;Michele Acuto;Brendan Gleeson

来源

CITIES,Vol.131,Issue1,Article 103917

语言

英文

关键字

Boundary-spanning organisation;Interdisciplinary;Knowledge systems;Urban governance

作者单位

Melbourne Centre for Cities, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia;Faculty of Arts, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia;Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria;Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia;Melbourne Centre for Cities, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia;Faculty of Arts, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia;Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria;Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

摘要

Silo-ed thinking, fragmented knowledge systems and short-termism remain key challenges in transforming urban systems and policy making towards more sustainable and resilient cities. Innovative strategies and actions which seek to drive agendas of change are often stuck in established and inflexible planning or policy structures. Complex issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss or socio-economic disparities require the attention of a variety of stakeholders from public, private and academic sectors and civil society. To meet this challenge, some cities have recognised that new knowledge networks and forms of collaboration are needed to meet this challenge. Urban knowledge exchanges are increasingly discussed and practiced as boundary-spanning platforms to bridging knowledge gaps and catalyse innovative forms of cross-sectoral communication, cooperative learning and action. To understand this new form of intermediation, this paper systematically analyses 26 international examples of urban knowledge exchanges. By comparing their organisational structures and approaches of knowledge sharing and translation, the analysis shows that there are several differing models globally that are adopted to respond to the challenge of knowledge fragmentation. The identified key features include: inclusive knowledge co-production, openness of interaction around a boundary object, ongoing monitoring and evaluation and the sustained investment of time in the institution.