Mark Ernst,
Janne de Hoop
Concepts from literature to be employed in the study
Janne de Hoop
1. Social-Technological Systems:
Socio-Technological systems can be defined as such, because they include all the factors influencing the bigger picture. All the stakeholders (actors), resources, technologies and place have to be taken into account to be able to get something done. If the connection between the different elements of the system is not clear, is will be very hard to work with such a system. This could either be because you want to have a better understanding of why processes work the way they do, or because you want to change something and you have to know what elements to work with and what not.
2. Sustainability Transitions:
For sustainable transitions the theory of transitions in general is taken into account, mostly because there is not a wide knowledge yet about the transition towards sustainability. The regular trend with transitions is that is starts with some small initiatives on a small scale. Next to this more companies and entrepreneurs become enthusiastic and will adopt the same principles. As soon as more and more people will join in the proces will speed up. A period of quick and wide spread transitions will start. In the end there will become an equilibrium again where only the few left over people/companies have to join in.
3. The three pillars of Borrás & Edler:
To be able to easily define the different influences/factors of a socio-technical system, Borras & Edler defined the three pillars; opportunity structures, instrumentation and acceptance of change. The first two pillars were already discussed within the socio-technological system of Geels (2002). Here the more physical factors are discussed where Borras and Edler (2014) also take into account the physiological side of with pillar 3. It relates back to Raymond Loewy's MAYA principe, Most advanced yet acceptable. You can have all the resources for transition possible, but if the people are not willing to use them, it will be useless. Figure 3 depicts the framework for governance of technology transitions.
Ram Kamath
1. Social-Technological Systems from Geels (2002) & Borræs & Edler (2014):
The artefact of the technology does not by itself fulfill societal functions. It is only when the artefact is linked to other constituents such as the pertinent infrastructure, the regulatory structure cultural meaning and actors such as the consumer that there is clarity regarding the societal value of the technology. These mutually interdependent elements form a socio-technical system that fulfills societal functions. For instance,network technologies like mobile phones will not be employable unless there is a network of OEMs, regulatory support, distribution networks etc. In attempting to redesigning the inorganic waste management system in Texel, we should take a systemic view and look at modifications at not just the artefact level but the infrastructural, institutional and social levels.
2.Regimes from Pesch (2015) and Geels (2002):
In the simplest terms, regimes are habits. Regimes are the existing way of doing things: the existing way of searching for solutions, designing products, manufacturing them; the existing way of framing expectations and assigning value. Regimes are what stabilize incumbent socio-technical systems. Change is difficult and the benefits are often in the long-term. Regimes do not accept innovations. What this means is transition to a new socio-technical system will be met with resistance. There may be actors in the current inorganic waste management system that do not see benefits in transitions an have considerable sunk costs in the current system. Transition can only be effected if it wins sufficient support and legitimacy.
3.Niches from Pesch (2015) and Geels (2002):
Niches, unlike regimes, are protective application spaces for new technology. Niches are spaces for pilots and acton-learning experiments with the new technology. Niches enable learning regarding exectations, networks and the technical features. For instance, if we need to learn about the response to a new waste segregation regulation, we start by imposing the new rule on one particular area in Texel before island-wide imposition. We do this to refine our intervention and arrive at a more legitimate transition
4. Agency from Pesch (2015):
Agency refers to the possibility of individual actors being able to play a role in the transition process. It is easier for actors to start off a transition in niches rather than in the regimes because of the restrictive regime environment. Question is how these actors can be incentivised to exercise their agency to set off a (sustainable) transition? How can agents in the current inorganic waste management system be encouraged to change existing practices?
5. Sustainability Transitions Pesch (2015) and Geels (2002):
A technology transition involves the emergence of a new socio-technical system that in the long-term will replace the existing socio-technical system. Transitions are not limited to a shift in the artefact being used but involve changes in production techniques, distribution networks, regulations, symbolic meaning etc. For instance, when digital cameras emerged, it replaced not just analogue cameras but complementary products, regulations and production techniques as well.In order to establish a sustainable society - a society where the socio-technical systems employed do not have adverse effects such that future generations and the environment are not harmed, there should be "sustainability transitions" that involve the creation, adoption and diffusion of sustainable technologies supported by changes in other elements such as institutions and consumer behavior. We expect a sustainability transition in the inorganic waste managemnet system will involve changes in segregation behavior, possible institutional changes and reuse and recycle techniques besides the technology used.
6. Governance of change from Borræs & Edler (2014):
Governance of change refers to how actors within a system interact with the intention of either producing transitions or preventing them. The keyword here is 'intentional'. Governance of change is concerned with the deliberate manipulation of direction of socio-technical change.There will be, in any system, actors who cannot see any benefits in a transition and will try to manage the path of socio-techical development to serve their needs. The lesson here is that, for transitions to be succesful, all interests and visions will need to be considered. The challenge is to frame transition such that is acceptable to all and not a zero sum game.
7. The three pillars of Borrás & Edler (2014):
To understand the deliberate manipulation of change, we need to identify the (1) actors driving or preventing the change:agents trigger, direct and inhibit change in the system by co-creating and/or making the most of new opportunities. Governance is carried out through negotiation and bargaining between interested state and non-state actors with interdependent resources relevant to the maintenance and change in the regime.(2) the methods they employ: include policy instruments designed by state agents and social agent’s instruments (voluntary reporting schemes or stewardship programmes, voluntary self commitments codified in professional ethics and technology specific codes of conduct)designed by non-state agents (3) if the changes they propose enjoy systemic support: socio-technical systems are legitimate if they enjoy wide social acceptance and support. Systems are legitimate if they enjoy popular support, both in terms of the process by which the decisions were taken (input legitimacy) and in terms of the support of the system’s outcomes (output legitimacy)
Mark Ernst
1. Social-Technological Systems from Geels (2002) & Borræs & Edler (2014):
A socio-technical system consists of many elements that are linked together. It’s the interaction between these elements that makes it a complex system. Changes to an element are not easily made, since all other elements have to change with it.
2.Regimes from Pesch (2015) and Geels (2002):
Regimes are the way things are done at the moment. As the names is saying, they are stubborn and hard to change. They cause the resistant against the new innovations.
3.Niches from Pesch (2015) and Geels (2002):
In contrary to the regimes, the niches are the places that are open for innovation and where they can take place.
4. Agency from Pesch (2015):
Agency is about the possibillity for actors to be a part of the transition process. Their role is crucial in this, in particular agents capable of triggering, directing and inhibiting change in the system.
5. Sustainability Transitions Pesch (2015) and Geels (2002):
A transition is not always sustainable. A sustainable transition can only be achieved when there is a coevolution of all developments. So if one thing changes, the whole system will need to change.
6. Governance of change from Borræs & Edler (2014):
Governance of change is about the fact change needs to be guided, because actors have different intentions. All actors should benefit from the change, that that the change is widely supported.
7. The three pillars of Borrás & Edler (2014):
The three pillars show that there are many factors that influence the successfulness of a transition. It is important to know what influences the change, who/what drives it and why it would be accepted.
Technologies fulfill numerous societal functions such as transportation, communication etc. From a sociology of technology perspective, the technological artefact in itself does not fulfill these functions. Rather,it is only in association with human agency, social structures and organisations that technology fulfils societal functions. Its is a “seamless web” of physical artefacts, organisations, natural resources, scientific elements, legislative artefacts that achieve functionalities (Geels, 2002; Hughes, 1987). When there are major technological transformations in the way societal functions such as waste management are executed, a technological transition occurs. Technology transitions do not only involve technological changes, but also changes in elements such as user practices, regulation, industrial networks, infrastructure, and symbolic meaning (Geels, 2002). The transition from typewriters to personal computers, for instance, was not limited to the adoption of a new artefact but involved changes in user behavior (the ability to make real time corrections to the document), related paraphernalia (introduction of QWERTY keyboards) and symbolic meaning (the PC was a symbol of Innovation) as well.Figure 1 below depicts the socio-technical system that fulfills the function of personal transportation.The main elements of a socio-technical system are new knowledge and technological artefacts, the individual and organisational actors that produce, adopt, diffuse and use knowledge and technological artefacts, as well as the various forms of infrastructure (physical, market, financial, regulatory, etc) that enable that production, adoption, diffusion and use of knowledge and technological artefacts. Figure 2 depicts the multi level perspective: the landscape, regime and niche levels. Innovations that aim to replace the socio-technical regime of the incumbent technology option often fail because regime change is conditioned by landscape factors. The creation of niches, temporarily protected spaces in which new technologies can incubate and become viable through gradual experimentation and learning by networks of actors, can overcome this inertia at the regime level (Van Eijk & Romijn, 2008).
In this chapter, we will explore the socio-technical configuration of heterogeneous elements that make up the waste management in the island of Texel. We shall see what organisations, regulations, infrastructure etc. make up this socio-technical system.The complex and recurring interactions between these elements have stabilized the existant waste management system. Once we understand the dynamics of this system, we can proceed with planning a sustainability transition (that involves changes in all elements: municipal/national regulations,waste management infrastructure, industry networks etc.) in subsequent chapters. The question we attempt to answer in following chapters is how we could orient technology and innovation in socially beneficial directions and how can agents contribute to the transition to a more sustainable waste management system. We shall, in the succeeding chapters, explore the different instruments these actors employ and possible pathways to a more sustainable future.
Figure 1. Elements from the sociotechnical configuration in transportation (Geels,2002)
Figure 2.The Multilevel Perspective (Geels,2002)
Figure 3.The governance of technology transitions (Borrás & Edler, 2014)