Karolina Dvorakova,
Robert Akerboom,
Jeffrey Ros
Pathways to sustainability, not just technology-based!
In their paper, Verbong and Geels (2010) discuss potential transition pathways for the current electricity system. The framework that was applied mainly empathises the inclusion of social dynamics and contexts, rather than simply technological pathways. This absence of social aspects is one of their main criticisms on earlier transition literature. Endogenous dynamics are thus introduced, meaning factors like beliefs, decisions, and interaction between actors. In other words, the paper tries to put more focus on the mixture between technology and sociology.
The framework is based on Geels’ multilevel perspective, and four non-deterministic, “ideal-type” pathways are presented where landscape pressure and different levels of niche innovation development shape the dynamics of the pathways. In each hypothetical pathway, there is a certain level of response to pressures on existing regimes and the resulting tensions. Pressure can be applied from the landscape level (see chapter 1.1) like international (emission) policy or other regulatory instruments imposed by government institutions as a result of climate impacts, or simply a change in the wish of consumers. Niche markets can also apply bottom-up pressure by the introduction of new innovations that potentially make current technologies that are embedded in a regime less stable or useful.
Geels and Verbong conclude that transition theory (as described in chapter 1) can be used to explore socio-technical pathways in terms of technology and policy the difference lies in the problems they prioritise, the social dynamics and the role of niches.
The importance of a bottoms-up approach to sustainability
The importance of social factors in transition pathways also reflects through the second paper, written by Ely et al. (2013). However, the focus here lies on the importance of locally based, community-scale initiatives as a factor for success towards global sustainability, as opposed to large scale renewable projects. Ely et al. view that “hybridization” is a strongly emerging way of approaching sustainable projects. Hybridization is described by them as “the emergence of dynamic, hybrid combinations of both (“both” referring to local and global, or grassroot and industrial) shaped and facilitated by emergent private–public–NGO partnerships” (p. 1064).
Furthermore, the authors suggest that a brokering role for hybridisation is laid out for government institutions like the EU. In their own words: “This includes providing support for marginalised groups to craft new forms of grassroots innovation and green industrialisation (and therefore more democratic hybrids thereof). In our view, this policy and political commitment has to be pursued beyond the networks and arenas of global debate. At international, national, and local levels, it needs to be pushed into the institutions of science and technology itself, such that the agendas of research institutes, technology strategies, investment portfolios, and skills programmes that currently shape dominant trajectories are opened up to democratic participation for developing pathways to sustainability.” (p.1078)
group interpretation on literature
|
Group member |
Literature interpretation / comments |
Application to texel / general comments |
|
Jeffrey |
Geels & Verbong (2010): This paper shows yet again the importance of social factors. Also, we revert back to the multilevel perspective and see how pressures from outside (or even inside) regimes can instigate change. Ely et al., (2013): interesting here is that instead of focusing on large-scale technologies like many papers do, this paper focuses more on the importance of small-scale community projects in order to kickstart sustainable pathways. |
The red line throughout most papers is becoming evident: social factors are of huge importance for the success/failure of (technological) transitions. We will have to see what type of pressures we can find for our own system, that are already happening or should happen in order to achieve self sufficiency. Perhaps crowdfunding is one of such things that applies pressure on the current financing domain. |
|
Karolina |
Geels & Verbong (2010): This paper states that the existing systems are characterised by stability and lock-in and changing these systems requires a big amount of external developments and policy interventions. The multilevel perspective (landscape-regimes-niches), discussed already in week 1 is also presented here together with the relationships in between the levels, leading towards different pathways. Ely et al., (2013): A good overview of different approaches towards new technologies in the energy sector. Two approaches are used to promote STI, however differing in their social and economic priorities: from on one hand focus on distinct actors, mechanisms and knowledge (used by firms, or PPPs and governments), to on the other hand participatory approach, more bottom-up. In between these two branches there are of course many hybrids. |
It is necessary to understand the theory of the different pathways that could be used to reach the goal of Texel self-sufficiency with their benefits and pitfalls. In different context different type of these strategies may be used; eventually our design pathway will probably be a hybrid one. The choice of the correct transition pathway also depends on the niches' state of development. Thus we need to understand, in which stage on the S-curve the current sustainable businesses and innovators (niches) find themselves as well as the landscape level (municipality of Texel, etc) in order to sketch the correct path towards self-sufficiency. |
|
Robert |
Geels & Verbong (2010): This paper discusses three different socio-technical pathways for sustainable transitions in the electricity sector. They also compare them and describe consequences for the entire system. They mainly focus on the relation between the regime level and the niches as examples, which are taken from the multi-level perspective. Ely et al., (2013): This paper is about mapping the settings for innovation politics. It is intended to be helpful for navigating us by showing examples of the past. A 3D agenda is said to be the foundation of the democratization of STI that can steer new small scaled kickstart innovations in the right direction. |
Regarding Texel, I believe that is would be very smart to design several pathways and sketch consequences for each of these, in order to make smart decisions when discussing with other groups during the bubble week. It gives flexibility and multiple possible solutions to stated problems. |
Reflection
While Texel as a system is a much smaller scale than the global picture that is sketched in both papers, and the application of the framework in the first paper to the electricity grid is not important in this regard, we think that there are things that we can learn and apply in our own research. For example, the focus on social dynamics will be of key importance in designing our own pathways. In our case, social dynamics will be the interaction between entrepreneurs and consumers/tourists and how this relation will develop over time. Furthermore, some “niche” innovations have already been spotted that may have an important influence on the dynamics as well. For example, the emergence of crowdfunding will change the way in how small businesses can more easily reach financial support without the dependency on institutional support (subsidies) or large corporations and their restrictions (banks). In light of our own system description, this could lead to small changes in the Finance & Support domain.
The importance of hybrid cooperation between local communities and industry is also an important aspect that we can use in our own pathways. Especially entrepreneurs will be key actors when it comes to bringing together local initiatives, interest and expertise.