SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: CONDITION FOR SUCCESS

misbe2011 Tracking Number 99

Today, many new urban areas, such as cities, towns, villages, or districts, are being built worldwide and their completion requires the development of a number of infrastructures. Among others there is a need for energy and drinking water provision, waste management and wastewater treatment, transport facilities and so on. Each of these societal functions can be conceptualized as part of separate socio-technical systems. Traditionally urban planners consider each of these socio-technical systems independently from each other. In the last decades, increased environmental consciousness has been pushing cities and municipalities to minimize the environmental footprint of, among others, newly developed urban areas. One of the possible strategies to do so is to make a transition towards a circular urban metabolism, as supported by Herbert Girardet. This means that the material and energy cycle should be closed. In other words, the aforementioned socio-technical systems have to be locally integrated to each other (e.g. domestic waste can be used for energy provision or sewage as a source for generating transport fuel, etc.). This process, here referred to as ‘systems integration’, requires the collaboration of a number of actors whose interest, expectations and working culture may greatly differ from each other. These differences may lead to tensions that need to be resolved before the integrated systems can be realized. Moreover, there is not one single way through which systems integration can be achieved. Outcomes highly depend on who takes responsibility for the realization of the system, which stakeholders are involved in the design process, to which degree and how. Finally, already existing technological landscape may also strongly influence, or even limit the path that systems integration may take. For instance, actors may push for solutions that build upon rather than compromise the technological solutions they already invested in. In this paper, we try to understand the tensions that emerge when integrated systems are developed. By analyzing the processes behind urban developments where various socio-technical systems have been (tentatively) integrated, we aim to identify the necessary conditions for systems integration at the urban level. Our empirical material draws upon two case studies: Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm, Sweden, and EVA-Lanxmeer in Culemborg, the Netherlands. Moreover, our analysis will be based on insights from both socio-technical system theory and actor-network theory. Hammarby Sjöstad was planned and initiated from the top down by the City of Stockholm, as an integrated system. In collaboration with the infrastructure companies of the city, the Hammarby Model was created in an attempt to close the material and energy flows of the district as much as possible. EVA-Lanxmeer however, was initiated from the bottom up, by individuals and experts interested in sustainable living. It is only later on that the municipality of Culemborg became involved in designing and constructing the district. Integrated solutions were considered throughout the process, however only some of them could be realized. Our cases show that when realizing integrated systems, it is crucial that all actors are in place. If for one reason or another, a certain actors refuses to participate strategies (or a consensus) must be found to convince and/or force him (her) to participate or the system has to be changed to function without the actor. Otherwise, the integrated system cannot be realized. Moreover our analysis also shows the need for a concept keeper that should consistently guard and push forward the integrated vision for the district.