2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

The European commission

Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review

Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

http://www.managingforimpact.org/sites/default/files/case/stilgoe_owen_macnaghten_2013_developing_a_framework_for_responsible_innovation.pdf

Developing a framework for responsible innovation

The term responsible (research and) innovation has gained increasing EU policy relevance in the last two years, in particular within the European Commission’s Science in Society programme, in the context of the Horizon 2020 Strategy. We provide a brief historical overview of the concept, and identify three distinct features that are emerging from associated discourses. The first is an emphasis on the democratic governance of the purposes of research and innovation and their orientation towards the ‘right impacts’. The second is responsiveness, emphasising the integration and institutionalisation of established approaches of anticipation, reflection and deliberation in and around research and innovation, influencing the direction of these and associated policy. The third concerns the framing of responsibility itself in the context of research and innovation as collective activities with uncertain and unpredictable consequences. Finally, we reflect on possible motivations for responsible innovation itself.

Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society

“Responsible innovation,” in reality, lacks definition and clarity, both in concept and practice. This chapter begins by emphasizing that science and innovation have not only produced understanding, knowledge, and value (economic, social, or otherwise), but also questions, dilemmas, and unintended impacts. It presents a framework for responsible innovation, based on four dimensions-anticipatory, reflective, deliberative, and responsive. The chapter emphasizes that this must be able to reflect on both the products and purposes of science and innovation. It reminds of the rich history in a number of fields of study, both theoretical and applied, which make a significant and important contribution both to the framing and definition of responsible innovation, and to how this is translated through the dimensions into practice. The chapter concludes with some closing thoughts on implementation, on how the embedding of responsible innovation as a genuinely transformative and constructive approach can be supported.

/pdf/a-framework-for-responsible-innovation-1mlod5ckh8.pdf

A Framework for Responsible Innovation

In this article we argue that nanotechnology represents an extraordinary opportunity to build in a robust role for the social sciences in a technology that remains at an early, and hence undetermined, stage of development. We examine policy dynamics in both the United States and United Kingdom aimed at both opening up, and closing down, the role of the social sciences in nanotechnologies. We then set out a prospective agenda for the social sciences and its potential in the future shaping of nanotechnology research and innovation processes. The emergent, undetermined nature of nanotechnologies calls for an open, experimental, and interdisciplinary model of social science research.

/pdf/nanotechnology-governance-and-public-deliberation-what-role-1zrcueqva8.pdf

Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?

It is increasingly recognized that the success of sustainable development initiatives depends on widespread public identification and support. Indeed, public participation has become a core component of the official discourse of sustainable development, particularly at local level. However to date there has been little research examining the ‘cultural’ factors governing the potential public uptake of sustainability. This paper reports on a study using focus groups drawn from different sections of the Lancashire public which sought to cast light on public understanding of and identification with sustainable development. Considerable public support was found for the idea that current ways of life are generating problems for the future and that economic activity would have to be held within environmental limits. However there was very little support for the idea that sustainabillty would be achieved through government and business initiatives. Government in particular was deeply mistrusted as part of the ‘system’ which was generating environmental and social problems. The paper argues that this mistrust in government and the lack of a sense of individual agency has serious implications for the political salience of sustainable development. Initiatives to generate public participation, particularly by providing information through sustalnability indicators, are unlikely to succeed unless this is addressed.

Phil Macnaghten

Papers

Developing a framework for responsible innovation

Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society

A Framework for Responsible Innovation

Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?

Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation