Tessa Vaendel,
Noor Debets
The literature analyzes ‘pathways’ in two ways. First, Ely et al. (2013) looks at the full spectrum of politics behind design pathways and all hybrid possibilities that make the framework that shapes the sustainability initiative. Then they come up with an agenda to guide these hybrid pathways. As lifestyle is a large part of the difference between the actors, the framework in this article could help work around tensions in local initiatives.
There are several concepts discussed in the article of Ely et al. (2013), of which two are relevant for the sustain lifestyles sub-system. The first of these is ‘hybrid innovation pathways’. As mentioned earlier, there are many pathways and methods to sustainable development, which are usually somewhere on a spectrum. On one side there are the global top-down initiatives run by big corporations, focused on high-tech and profitable initiatives. On the other side there are local community projects that focus on social justice and improving the living environments of particular groups. Hybrid innovations are somewhere between these two extremes and mix aspects. This means they are more unpredictable but also more dynamic and complex, as they open doors for new dimensions. All initiatives on Texel are somewhere on this spectrum. So far a lot of the focus has been on grassroots innovations due to the local connection with lifestyles. However, there are a few high tech solutions that could be a great asset to sustainable growth, when developed in a hybrid pathway.
In order to succeed in creating these hybrid systems, a framework is needed. This is why a 3D agenda was developed (Ely et al., 2013). This agenda focuses on three aspects that bring guidance to this new and dynamic hybrid way of working. The first aspect is ‘Directions’, this is about making everyone’s goal clear. Lifestyle is such a personal concept, that clarity between the different actors will help the process along. Secondly ‘Distribution’ is about weighing the risks, costs and benefits, and responsibility for parts of the project. The last aspect ‘Diversity’ is important since Texel on the one hand is caught in between local grassroots initiatives by island inhabitants who know the local terrain, and on the other hand the green industrialization, which provide information about new techniques. All this knowledge is valuable and by acknowledging the diversity, a balanced result can be found.
This framework and agenda are still very conceptual, with no practical examples. The other paper, written by Verbong & Geels (2009) instead focuses on the changes that happen in and around the socio-technical system on one of those pathways. This concept is called transition pathways. As lifestyle is often an actor’s personal expression of the socio-technical system, this is highly relevant. This paper shows how the lifestyle of the stakeholders could pressure the system to change and how this would change the lifestyle of the actors in turn.
A distinction could be made in the type of pathways; this depends on the different issues and stakeholders, resulting in different outcomes for the socio-technical system. Four types of pathways are identified, however three are focused on in the paper. The first of these is the transformation pathway (Verbong & Geels, 2009). This transformation strategy brings the system closer to a hybrid system, but it still stays very similar to the initial state. The energy providers and actors slowly diverge from the current path of the system in reaction to pressures from outside groups, such as the government or the Planet-Local. Since the infrastructure of the energy system does not change, and the cost-efficiency is high, the Profit-Local would also be proponents of this pathway, though not without this outside pressure.
The next concept is the reconfiguration pathway (Verbong & Geels, 2009), which is a transition pathway that could eventually lead to a Supergrid. This pathway combines external pressure to transfer to a more sustainable system with growing uncertainty about the lifespan of existing energy resources. This destabilizes the existing regime set up by the Profit-Local, which gives the chance for niche innovations to slip into the system, as designed by the Planet-Local. All these sustainable innovations would then link up together into a large scale Supergrid that spans large parts of Europe.
Finally there is the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway (Verbong & Geels, 2009). The most extreme of the three pathways, this is caused by outside destabilization and distrust of the current resources available. This would throw society in a period of uncertainty and experimentation. This means the Profit-Local has no resources, which would open them to niche-innovations that seem promising. The situation could cause distrust towards energy generated outside the area, which could cause local areas to set up their own micro grids, which are then loosely linked together. The isolated location of Texel might make this a very good location for this pathway, as it will help in reaching the goal of 100% self-sustainability. However this pathway could be initiated by an extreme political shift outside of Texel and is economically inefficient and fraught with uncertainty, which could make this undesirable.
In short, there are many ways the socio-technical system and the lifestyle of the inhabitants could be influenced, both from the inside and the outside. Once this happens, a certain transition pathway takes place, defined by the type of events and initiatives that take place. These initiatives could be hybrid gatherings of actors from all over the spectrum, with different goals, work methods and expectations. A framework with the types of pathways would help bring clarity to what changes the initiatives will bring to the socio-technical system of Texel.