Theoretical framework of the study

Both the MLP and the TIS frameworks have been extensively used for the study of the diffusion of renewable energy technological innovations. Both frameworks are based on evolutionary economics and include concepts of non-linearity and path dependence, praise the importance of

learning processes, institutions and networks, and were developed with a view to informing policy (Markard & Truffer, 2008; Meelen & Farla, 2013).

The two frameworks also complement each other: analytical weaknesses of the MLP framework can be covered by the TIS framework and vice versa. The MLP explains the success of innovation and the transition process as the result of an interplay among stabilizing mechanisms at the regime level, destabilizing landscape pressures applied to regimes, and the emergence of radical innovations at the niche level. However, the MLP is unable to elaborate in detail how, for example, changing policies (governance structures) that influence the transition process, come about. This level of detail is provided through a TIS analysis and the use of functions and functional interactions (Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann, & Smits, 2007, p. 418). Furthermore, the MLP framework offers limited details on the roles and strategies of participating actors, interactions between actors and institutions, and resource distribution and their role in the development of networks and actors’ capacity (Markard & Truffer, 2008; Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005).

Conversely, the TIS approach is unable to capture broader landscape factors that influence the transition process or inertia of incumbent sociotechnical regimes, but is able to deal with strategies, resources, and agency through the use of a combined structural and functional analysis. By providing a clear distinction between structure and functions, it also allows the analysis of interactions between actors participating in a specific institutional infrastructure, responsible for the generation, diffusion, and use of the technological innovation, which, in turn, reveals how specific policies and governance structures come about (Hekkert, et al., 2007). Furthermore, the TIS approach identifies underlying systemic problems, such as ineffective working networks, and institutional and infrastructure failures responsible for blocking and inducement mechanisms, which in turn influence the innovation functions (Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012; Markard, Hekkert,

& Jacobsson, 2015). Finally, the TIS analysis can capture spatial issues (different dynamics between nations or regions) and variety, such as economic drivers, institutional settings, and cultures, through comparative TIS studies between nations, or regions (Markard, Hekkert, &

Jacobsson, 2015), or local levels (Ulsrud, Rohracher, Winther, Muchunku, & Palit, 2018).

The complementary nature of the MLP and TIS frameworks was investigated by Markard and Truffer (2008) who proposed an integrated framework. In the integrated framework a TIS would

be influenced (both positively and negatively) by landscape factors, existing regimes, other TIS, and technological niches. Based on this integrated approach, Meelen and Farla (2013) proposed the integration of policy approaches related to MLP (and the associated transitions management and strategic niche management) with the policy recommendations resulting from the TIS literature into one framework for policy analysis. Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter 2, both the MLP and TIS frameworks have been combined with other theories to examine the transformation of electrical systems in developing countries and in the context of on-grid Canadian indigenous communities.

This study will employ the MLP and TIS frameworks at different scales to examine the transformation of remote indigenous community electrical systems through RETs and address the study’s second and third objectives. In a first step, a modified MLP framework that includes governance structures (Smith et al., 2005) is applied at a national scale to analyze the transition dynamics in Canadian remote indigenous communities between 1980 and 2016 (Chapter 6). The analysis identifies transformation patterns and regime shifts and provides an explanation of the diffusion of RETs into communities’ electrical systems. However, the MLP framework is unable to explain in detail how (and why) the supporting policies came about, the roles and strategies of participating actors, the interactions between actors and institutions, or the distribution of resources and their role in the development of networks and actors’ capacity (Markard & Truffer, 2008;

Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005; Hekkert, et al., 2007). In a second step, therefore, a combined structural and functional analysis of the NWT and Ontario TISs, where the majority of RET projects were deployed between 2000 and 2016, will examine and compare the diffusion of RET in these remote communities and further address the study’s second and third objectives (Chapter 7). In addition, this within nation sub-national level comparison (at the provincial level) (Snyder, 2001) may illustrate similarities and differences based on cultural, historical, institutional, and socioeconomic dimensions and demonstrate the importance of geographical factors in the transition process.

The next section outlines the conceptual frameworks to be used in the study, and, based on the framework components, the methodology for achieving the study’s remaining objectives.

3.3.1 Modified MLP framework

The modified MLP framework (Figure 1) conceptualizes the transformation of communities’

electrical systems through the introduction of three main subsystems (constellations or regimes) of the sociotechnical system that contribute to the system’s functioning and influence the transition process: first, the incumbent regime that currently dominates the functions of the sociotechnical system that meets societal needs; second, novel constellations called niches that are able to provide system functions, but lack the power to become the dominant regime; finally, niche-regimes that provide, or are able to provide, system functions due to their power and are situated between the previous actors. Accordingly, the transition from the current system to a more sustainable one is conceptualized through the emergence of a niche-regime, either existing or developed out of a niche, that applies a different way (in terms of structure, culture and practices) of fulfilling societal needs, competes with the incumbent regime, and, eventually, takes over its functions, thus becoming the main provider of the system’s functioning (deHaan & Rotmans, 2011; Grin, Rotmans, & Schot, 2010).

Figure 1: MLP modified framework: regime and niche-regime conditions and governance processes of the transition

Transformative change in the system occurs through: (a) tensions, or misalignment of the incumbent regime’s functioning as a response to new developments at the broader landscape level of economic, cultural, political or ecological nature, (b) stresses, defined as internal misalignments of the incumbent regime’s functioning that are either inadequate or inconsistent with the societal needs, and (c) pressures, developed towards incumbent regimes from new technologies and/or the existence of niches or niche-regimes (deHaan & Rotmans, 2011). When the regime conditions (tensions, stresses and pressures) reinforce each other towards a certain direction, then the introduction of transition experiments in the form of technological innovative projects aimed at societal change, allow for learning processes and the empowerment of niches and their transformation to niche-regimes which challenge the incumbent regime (deHaan & Rotmans, 2011; Grin, Rotmans, & Schot, 2010; van den Bosch & Rotmans, 2008). Learning processes include learning from transition experiments implemented in a specific context (deepening), in different contexts (broadening), as well experiments that are integrated and embedded (scaling-up) into mainstream activities and practices (van den Bosch & Rotmans, 2008; Grin, Rotmans, &

Schot, 2010).

Van den Bosch & Rotmans (2008) add four niche related conditions for the success of transition experiments, namely (a) the internal alignment of the niche, (b) the ability of the niche to exercise power on the incumbent regime locally, (c) the existence of a cooperative regime that is responsive to experiments and the existence of key actors that assist in transforming experiments to practices that address societal needs, and (d) the alignment of the niche with trends and developments at the broader landscape level. The transition contains “slow” phases (pre-development and stabilization), resulting from negative feedback mechanisms caused by the incumbent regime in charge during the specific period, and “fast” phases (take-off and acceleration), where regime and niche regime conditions create positive feedback mechanisms that move the innovation forward (Grin, Rotmans, & Schot, 2010).

Because a transition process (or transition pathway) covers periods of (slow and fast) transformation, it could be represented as a sequence of transition patterns, or a sequence of transformations from a current system state to a new system state, involving changes in the system’s functioning (deHaan & Rotmans, 2011). This transformative change can be “managed”

by creating supporting mechanisms that create positive feedbacks, thereby influencing the transition.

Accordingly, transition pathways can be represented through a series of successive transition patterns, with the dynamics of each stage depending on (1) the current system state (system composition), (2) the system conditions, in terms of regime tensions, stresses, and pressures, and niche conditions, and (3) the governance processes negotiated between different regime members that seek to influence the transition process (Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005; deHaan &

Rotmans, 2011; Haxeltime, Whitmarsh, & Bergman, 2008). As a result of the dynamic processes involved, niches can grow to niche regimes and eventually replace the incumbent regime, or they can be incorporated into, or co-exist with, the incumbent regime (Schot & Geels, 2008).

The analysis will indicate the extent to which RETs have emerged as a viable electricity generation alternative in remote communities in terms of regime shifts (which indicate a transition), the speed, size, period of change, and the phase (pre-development, take-off, etc.) of the transition, as well as the origin of the transition, in terms of where (which level and which constellation), when (in terms of tensions, stresses and pressures, niche related conditions and governance processes), and how (what type of experiments and learning processes). The dynamics of the process are elaborated through the articulation of expectations, learning processes, the creation of networks, building of institution (including governance structures), and experimenting (Schot & Geels, 2008; Smith &

Raven, 2012). Furthermore, the transition patterns, as indicated by the extent of regime shifts, will also provide information on the effectiveness of strategies and instruments, and indicate targets and levers that could be the object of policies for influencing transitions.

3.3.2 TIS framework and TISs comparison

Based on the TIS analytical framework (see the process proposed by Bergek et al., 2008, and Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012), the NWT and Ontario TISs are defined as networks of actors that interact within each province’s institutional infrastructure for the diffusion and use of RET technologies into remote communities’ systems. New RET technologies, such as wind and solar,

“emerge” as electricity generation options as they co-evolve with the communities’ social contexts and are adopted if they align with community sociocultural and economic practices (Ockwell, et

al., 2018). Methodologically, first, the structure, functional pattern, and the main blocking mechanisms and underlying systemic problems that induce or hinder the fulfilment of the functions in both TISs will be identified using the analytical framework presented in Table 4. Second, the systemic problems responsible for the poor functional performance of both the NWT and Ontario TISs will be “precisely identified” and analyzed (Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012, p. 85). Third, the functional performances of the NWT and Ontario TISs during the 2000-2016 period will be analyzed and compared in order to, first, explain the diffusion of the TISs, and, second, generate insights concerning the main factors that influence the deployment.

Table 4: Framework for the analysis of the TIS in remote indigenous communities

Functions Evaluation

• Presence and quality (effectiveness) of directionality measures?

• Presence and quality (effectiveness) of demand articulation measures?

• Presence and quality (effectiveness) of policy coordination measures?

• Presence and quality (effectiveness) of reflexivity measures?

Adapted from Wieczorek and Hekkert (2012) and Weber and Rohracher (2012). See also Labrinopoulou, Renwick, Klerkx, Hermans, & Roep (2014).

Functional performance during the period investigated is assessed through mapping actors’

activities (events) that changed institutions, influenced interactions and modified infrastructure, and, therefore, addressed systemic problems and contributed to TIS function changes and fulfillment. Events are then allocated to functions based on operationalization indicators (Suurs et al., 2010) described in Table 5. Findings will follow in the form of a narrative that will explain the historic development of both TISs through changes in the structure and functions’ interactions.

The aim of the TIS analysis is to offer additional explanation of the diffusion process by examining interactions (the functional pattern), the reflexivity of governance processes (why certain policies

and programs came into existence), and differences in context and institutional settings that may influence the diffusion process.

Table 5: Functions and operationalization indicators for the NWT and Ontario TIS

System function Operationalization indicators

F1. Entrepreneurial activities • Development of remote community owned RET projects.

F2. Knowledge development • Conducting renewable resource surveys, monitoring studies, feasibility studies.

• Community energy plans. Small-scale RET experiments. Participation in research projects.

F3. Knowledge diffusion • Training of community members. Promoting energy-related education, developing energy campaigns, organizing and participating in conferences, exhibitions, workshops, charrettes, seminars, meetings.

F4. Guidance of the search

• Establishing targets for RETs. Design of policies and regulations that favor RET solutions. Design of policies and regulations that favor RET solutions in remote indigenous communities. Establishing expectations from RETs projects on indigenous lands. Providing direction and expressing interest in RETs options.

• Publication of results from studies involving RETs in remote communities.

F5. Market formation

• Regulatory arrangements that allow local governments and their organizations to participate in the electricity generation process as Independent Power Producers (IPP). Power purchase agreements (PPAs). Net metering agreements.

F6. Resource mobilization • Providing financial incentives (for project capital, technical training, and electricity generation). Providing loans. Providing loan guarantees. Financing research projects. Mobilizing cooperation with the private sector.

F7. Support from advocacy coalitions/ legitimization

• Advocating for indigenous RETs projects in remote communities. Statements of indigenous leadership on the cultural fit of RETs projects. Community visions and expectations favoring RETs deployment.