Transition management: a socio-technical perspective

Adaptive management applied to SES and TM applied to STS have much in common, although they have different roots. TM has its roots in innovation and technology studies dating from the late 90s (Rotmans et al. 2000) and has a long history in the Netherlands, where it emerged out of a socio-political need to face environmental degradation and the huge costs of mitigation investments (Van der Brugge and Van Raak 2007). In spite of divergences in their origins, both approaches attempt to provide an understanding of CAS and emphasise the importance of continuous processes of learning and adjusting (Van der Brugge and Van Raak 2007).

Because TM considers transitions as long-term processes of change (20-25 years) during which a society changes fundamentally (Rotmans et al. 2000; Rotmans et al. 2001b), it tends to have a broader approach to sustainability in that it addresses the multi- dimensional interactions between industry, technology, markets, policy, culture and civil society (Geels 2012). Indeed, the theory of TM was founded to provide governments with tools to mainstream efforts to govern such processes of change and direct them towards a desirable state.

From the TM perspective, transitions are non-linear processes where a slow change (predevelopment) is followed by a rapid change (take-off and acceleration) when things reinforce each other. This is again followed by a slow change (stabilisation) in the new equilibrium (see Fig. 2.8). As Loorbach and Rotmans (2006) recognise, it is not

58 | P a g e

misguided to see this process as similar to the 4 phases of change illustrated by the adaptive cycle (see Sect. 2.5, Fig. 2.5).

Figure 2.8 Stages of a transition process (Rotmans et al. 2000)

TM scholars have also developed an analytical approach that furthers the understanding of TM mechanisms and conceptualises the overall dynamic patterns in socio-technical transitions. This is known as the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions (Geels 2002). In the MLP, scale levels and dynamics are represented by nested landscapes, regimes and niches (see Fig. 2.9). Landscapes operate at the macro-level and are the slowest-changing external factors which affect societies. At niche level there are individual actors, technologies and local practices. It is at this level where the radical innovation starts and new ideas on technologies, ways of acting, etc. arise. The meso- level consists of regimes of rules that enable and constrain activities within communities (Geels 2002), such as interests, social norms, belief systems that affect the organisation of companies, the strategies of institutions and the policies of political institutions (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006)

2 . T h e o r i e s o f r e s i l i e n c e a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

Marta Olazabal - Doctoral Dissertation 59 | P a g e

Figure 2.9 Landscapes, regimes and niches (Geels 2002)

Figure 2.10 Landscapes, regimes and niches (Geels 2002)

How niche innovations can generate new regimes is shown in Figure 2.10. This figure reflects also the phases of predevelopment-acceleration-stabilisation defined by Rotmans et al. (2000). In the MLP, Geels (2002; 2011) distinguishes seven co-evolving dimensions of socio-technical regimes: technology, user practices and application domains (markets), symbolic meaning of technology, infrastructure, industry structure, policy and techno-

60 | P a g e

scientific knowledge. Tensions may arise between these dimensions caused by differences in opinions or periods of uncertainty. It is at this point when radical innovations in niches, which do not normally find ways to succeed, may break in and generate a technological transition. These are called ‘windows of opportunity’. However, as pointed out by Geels (2002), in addition to being opened by regime tensions, windows of opportunity can also be created by shifts in the landscape, such as for example cultural changes, demographic trends or broad political changes.

As mentioned, TM seeks to offer governance tools for managing these transitions, i.e. to be able to operate and handle processes at different levels in order to foster a desired transition. Loorbach and Rotmans (2010) argue that such management of transitions requires:

(i) dealing with uncertainties;

(ii) keeping options open;

(iii) Taking a long-term view and using it for short-term policies;

(iv) paying attention to the international aspects of change processes and finding solutions on the right scale; and

(v) creating governance by stimulating, mediating, and engaging.

This view of how to stimulate processes of transformation and manage them in time and space scales fits with the definition of sustainability put forward by Holling (2001, p.390), i.e. “the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability, whereas development is the process of creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity”.

From the TM perspective, transitions to sustainability have both an institutional approach and a social and community dimension. As argued by Kemp and van Lente (2011),

sustainability transitions17

17 _{The terms ‘transformation’ and ‘transition’ are sometimes used interchangeably in the relevant literature}

(

have a socio-technical nature and as such involve two major

Yang 2010). In this dissertation, when I use “sustainable transformation”, the meaning related to the process of change is stressed. When I use ‘sustainability transition’, the possibility of defining different alternatives and options to achieve a sustainable state is stressed.

2 . T h e o r i e s o f r e s i l i e n c e a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

Marta Olazabal - Doctoral Dissertation 61 | P a g e

challenges: a long-term change in technologies and infrastructures and a the change in consumers’ options which is needed to support the first change.

All in all, discussions on how sustainable development contributes to studies on TM are

of considerable interest at this time.18 _{Given that TM originally was originally intended to}

respond to environmental problems, sustainability is often an underlying interest in TM studies. Nevertheless, in my review of the relevant literature I have found no TM studies on the environmental dimension or the ES regime.