Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
topics:eaas_-_energy-as-a-service [2026/04/06 15:04] – o.sachstopics:eaas_-_energy-as-a-service [2026/04/07 14:00] (current) – o.sachs
Line 1: Line 1:
-<WRAP catbadge blue>General Topics +<WRAP catbadge blue>General Topics</WRAP>
-</WRAP> +
 <html></html> <html></html>
-====== Transitional Pathways ======+====== Transition Pathways ======
  
 <WRAP meta> <WRAP meta>
-lead-authors: Frank W. Geels, Johan Schot 
-contributors: Niki Frantzeskaki, Katharina Hölscher, Paula A. Harrison 
 reviewers: reviewers:
 version: 1.0 version: 1.0
-updated: 06 April 2026 +updated: 07 April 2026 
-sensitivity: medium+sensitivity: low
 status: in-review status: in-review
-ai-use: Gemini 1.5 Pro was used for synthesizing academic literature from Geels & Schot (2007) and Frantzeskaki et al. (2019), and for wiki formatting.+ai-use: Gemini 1.5 Pro (Google) was used for structural mapping of source material, editorial synthesis according to wiki guidelines, and APA 7th reference formatting.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP intro> <WRAP intro>
-Transitional pathways describe the different routes through which sociotechnical systems—such as energy, transport, or agriculture—transform over time. Based on the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), these pathways emerge from the alignment of processes at three levels: niche-innovations, sociotechnical regimes, and the sociotechnical landscape. Understanding these pathways is crucial for governing sustainability transitions, especially in the face of high-end climate change.+Transition pathways describe the patterns and processes through which sociotechnical systems, such as the electricity grid, shift from one stable configuration to another in response to environmental, social, or technological pressures. In the context of smart grid transitions, these pathways are defined by the coevolutionary interaction between technologies, institutions, and actor strategies, moving away from centralized, high-carbon regimes toward decentralized and sustainable architectures.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP insight> <WRAP insight>
-Transitional pathways are defined by the timing and nature of interactions between niche-level innovations, regime-level stability, and landscape-level pressures.+Transition pathways describe the coevolutionary patterns through which energy systems shift from high-carbon regimes toward sustainable, smart grid architectures.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 ===== Why this matters ===== ===== Why this matters =====
  
-Transitions are not monolithic; they vary depending on whether niche-innovations are ready to replace the status quo and how much pressure the existing regime faces from external "landscape" factors like climate change or geopolitical shifts.+The transition to a low-carbon economy is not merely a matter of technological substitution; it requires a fundamental realignment of how societies produce and consume energy. Understanding transition pathways allows policymakers and stakeholders to identify "branching points"—critical decision moments where choices can either reinforce current path dependencies or open new trajectories toward sustainability.
  
 <WRAP callout> <WRAP callout>
-The challenge for modern governance is not just to foster innovation, but to identify which pathway—transformation, reconfiguration, or substitution—is most robust under deep uncertainty.+Transitions are not linear; they are emergent processes driven by the tension between established regimes and radical niche innovations. Identifying the type of pathway helps in anticipating the resistance or support a smart grid initiative might encounter.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-As Europe faces "high-end" climate change (exceeding +2°C), transition pathways provide a framework for co-creating desirable futures with stakeholders. These pathways integrate adaptation and mitigation strategies, focusing on shifting toward sustainable lifestyles, good governance, and adaptive resource management for water, agriculture, and energy.+Smart grid transitions involve a shift from "physical" to "social" technologies, where the coordination of distributed resources depends as much on market design and user behavior as on hardware. By analyzing these pathways, actors can better navigate the "lock-in" of existing high-carbon systems and develop robust strategies that integrate technical feasibility with institutional viability and social acceptance.
  
 ===== Shared definitions ===== ===== Shared definitions =====
  
-A typology of four primary sociotechnical transition pathways can be distinguished based on the nature of multi-level interactions:+A transition pathway describes a bundle of strategies and actions that support the achievement of a long-term vision, positioned in relation to — rather than separate from — social, cultural, political, economic, and institutional contexts. The pathways approach enables integrated systemic thinking about the short-, medium-, and long-term actions needed to reach a more sustainable future.((Frantzeskaki, N., et al. (2019). Transition pathways to sustainability in greater than 2°C climate futures of Europe. //Regional Environmental Change//, 19(3), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01475-x)) 
 + 
 +Within the multi-level perspective, transition pathways outline co-evolutionary developments across the layers of a socio-technical regime, consistent with and dependent on framework conditions at the landscape and niche levels. Landscape factors — long-term cultural and biophysical conditions including climate change impacts — influence the regime without being structurally influenced by regime change within a given time horizon. Niche developments, understood as innovation ecosystems, provide the space for institutional, social, technological, and business innovation at multiple regime levels.((Kubeczko, K. (2022). //Transformative readiness: Unpacking the technological and non-technological aspects of sustainability transitions.// Presented at the 13th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2022).)) 
 + 
 +==== Four transition pathway types ==== 
 + 
 +Geels and Schot (2007) identify four distinct patterns through which socio-technical regimes change, determined by the relative timing and strength of landscape pressure and niche development:((Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. //Research Policy//, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003))
  
 <WRAP tablecap> <WRAP tablecap>
-Table 1. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways according to Geels and Schot (2007).\ +**Table 1.** Four sociotechnical transition pathways.\\ 
-//Sources: Geels & Schot (2007); Research Policy 36(3).//+//Source: Geels & Schot (2007).//
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
-^ Pathway ^ Nature of Interaction ^ Core Dynamic ^ 
-| Transformation | Moderate landscape pressure; niches not yet ready | Regime actors respond to pressure by modifying the direction of development trajectories. | 
-| Reconfiguration | Niches are developed; landscape pressure leads to adoption | Symbiotic niche-innovations are adopted by the regime, leading to subsequent architectural changes. | 
-| Technological Substitution | Strong landscape pressure; niches are fully developed | Radical niche-innovations replace the incumbent regime through direct competition. | 
-| De-alignment & Re-alignment | Sudden/strong landscape shock; regime collapses | The regime destabilizes rapidly; multiple niches compete until one becomes the new standard. | 
  
-These pathways interact with the core concepts of transition theory:+^ Pathway ^ Conditions ^ Mechanism ^ 
 +| **Transformation** | Moderate landscape pressure; niche innovations not yet sufficiently developed | Regime actors modify the direction of development paths and innovation activities without regime breakdown | 
 +| **De-alignment and re-alignment** | Large, sudden, divergent landscape change | Increasing regime problems cause actors to lose faith; regime erodes before a new configuration stabilises | 
 +| **Technological substitution** | Strong landscape pressure; niche innovations sufficiently developed | Niche innovations break through and replace the existing regime | 
 +| **Reconfiguration** | Symbiotic niche innovations adopted to solve local problems | Innovations trigger further adjustments in the basic architecture of the regime incrementally |
  
-<WRAP tablecap> +==== Regime layers ==== 
-Table 2. Key terms in transition theory and pathway analysis.+ 
 +The socio-technical energy regime can be understood as four interacting layers, each with its own dynamics:((Kubeczko, K. (2022). //Transformative readiness: Unpacking the technological and non-technological aspects of sustainability transitions.// Presented at the 13th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2022).)) 
 + 
 +  * **Governance and institutions** — regulatory frameworks, rule systems, actor networks, market institutions, and policy structures at the socio-economic meso-level 
 +  * **Actors layer** — incumbent and emerging actors with their strategies, wants, needs, practices, and routines at the socio-economic micro-level 
 +  * **Functional** — functional structures and mechanisms of energy extraction, transformation, production, storage, and distribution 
 +  * **Biophysical** — the biophysical foundation of materials and energy flows, including artefactual infrastructure 
 + 
 +Enduring change within the regime is achieved only through cumulative causation: elements across the four layers interact in self-reinforcing ways. Change triggered by niche innovation in one layer must propagate across layers to produce lasting structural change. 
 + 
 +<WRAP figure> 
 +{{transp2.png?700|Transition pathways framework showing four regime layers and their relationship to landscape and niche levels}} 
 + 
 +**Figure 1.** Transition pathways framework: four regime layers and their relationship to landscape and niche levels.\\ 
 +//Source: Kubeczko (2022), adapted from Foxon et al. (2010).((Foxon, T. J., et al. (2010). Branching points for transition pathways: Assessing responses of actors to challenges on pathways to a low carbon future. //Energy Policy//, 38(12), 7948–7959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.020))//
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-^ Concept ^ Definition ^ +<WRAP figure> 
-| Sociotechnical Regime | The "deep structure" of a system: the shared rules, institutions, and practices that stabilize existing technologies. | +{{transitionp1.png?700|Ontological layers of a socio-technical regime}} 
-| Niche-Innovation | Protected "incubation rooms" where radical novelties are developed by small networks of dedicated actors. | + 
-| Landscape | The exogenous environment (e.g., climate change, macro-economics) that provides deep-seated pressures on the regime. | +**Figure 2.** Ontological layers of a socio-technical energy regime.\\ 
-| Transition Management | A governance approach aimed at influencing the speed and direction of transitions through co-creation and experimentation. |+//Source: Adapted from Foxon et al. (2010).((Foxon, T. J., et al. (2010). Branching points for transition pathways: Assessing responses of actors to challenges on pathways to a low carbon future. //Energy Policy//, 38(12), 7948–7959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.020))// 
 +</WRAP>
  
 ===== Perspectives ===== ===== Perspectives =====
  
-Transition pathways operate as a combination of actor-driven strategies, technical evolution, and institutional shifts.+Transition pathways are best understood through the triangulation of actors, technologies, and institutions, as no single element can drive a system-wide shift in isolation.
  
 <WRAP perspectives> <WRAP perspectives>
 ==== Actors and stakeholders ==== ==== Actors and stakeholders ====
  
-Transition pathways are shaped by a variety of actors with different roles. Regime incumbents (large firms, mainstream policymakers) often resist radical change but can drive "transformation" pathways. Niche-innovators (start-ups, activists) are the primary drivers of "substitution." +Actors navigate transition pathways based on specific "logics"—the underlying sets of goals and values that guide their decisions. These include market logic (focused on efficiency and profit), government logic (focused on public policy and security), and civil society logic (focused on social equity and environmental protection). Branching points occur when these actors must respond to stresses, such as new regulations or technical failures, potentially shifting the pathway's direction.
- +
-Recent research emphasizes the role of intermediaries who bridge the gap between niche and regime. Furthermore, participatory processes in Europe have shown that co-creating pathways with diverse stakeholders—ranging from local citizens to EU-level policymakers—is essential for ensuring pathways are robust against socioeconomic uncertainties.+
  
 <WRAP case> <WRAP case>
-UK -- Coal Industry Transition \ +**UK Low Carbon Electricity Pathways**\\ 
-The historical shift from coal-based energy systems illustrates a "technological substitution" pathway where external landscape pressures and the rise of gas/renewables eventually dismantled a long-standing regime. +Analysis of UK scenarios shows how the dominance of "Government-led" vs. "Market-led" logics leads to different branching points regarding the role of centralized nuclear power versus distributed renewable clusters.
-</WRAP> +
- +
-<WRAP case> +
-Europe -- High-End Climate Pathways \ +
-Co-created pathways for a >2°C future focus on "sustainable lifestyles" as a robust strategy, emphasizing bottom-up shifts in consumption and behavior as a foundation for broader system transformation.+
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 ==== Technologies and infrastructure ==== ==== Technologies and infrastructure ====
  
-Technologies are not just individual objects but parts of larger sociotechnical configurations. In "reconfiguration" pathways, niche technologies (like smart meters in the energy grid) act as symbiotic additions that gradually change the system's architecture without a total collapse of the old regime.+Technologies are part of a coevolutionary process; they do not just "appear" but are shaped by the institutions and business strategies that support them. Smart grid technologies, such as advanced metering and storage, act as niche innovations that can either be absorbed into the current regime (transformation) or serve as the basis for a new system architecture (reconfiguration).
  
-The robustness of a pathway often depends on its ability to integrate "adaptive resource management"—using digital and physical infrastructure to respond flexibly to environmental changes in water and agriculture.+<WRAP case> 
 +**Distributed Energy Resources (DERs)**\\ 
 +The integration of DERs demonstrates a "reconfiguration" pathway where technologies originally intended for backup power begin to change the fundamental logic of grid balancing and distribution. 
 +</WRAP>
  
 ==== Institutional structures ==== ==== Institutional structures ====
  
-Governance for transitions requires a shift from "control and direct" to "adapt and respond". Institutional structures must support policy mixes that both destabilize old regimes and provide "protection" for emerging niches.+Institutions—including laws, standards, and cultural norms—often create "carbon lock-in," where existing rules favor fossil-fuel-based systems. Transition pathways require institutional "un-locking," where regulatory frameworks are redesigned to value flexibility and decentralized participation. This coevolution of physical and social technologies is essential for a stable transition.
  
-Transition Management (TM) provides a methodology for this, involving four stages: (A) understanding and framing, (B) envisioning futures, (C) identifying opportunities, and (D) prioritizing actions. This allows for "purposive transitions" that are deliberately pursued to reflect societal values.+<WRAP case> 
 +**Environmental Constraints in Hydropower**\\ 
 +The implementation of environmental flow constraints on hydropower plants illustrates how institutional rules (environmental policy) can force technological and operational shifts in energy production, acting as a micro-level transition pathway. 
 +</WRAP>
  
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
Line 98: Line 113:
  
 <WRAP distinction> <WRAP distinction>
-Pathways vs. Scenarios \ +**Transition pathway vs. scenario** \\ 
-Scenarios focus on "what might happen" under different conditions; pathways focus on "how to get there," detailing the specific sequences of actions and actor-interactions required to reach a vision.+Scenarios describe plausible future states without prescribing how to reach them. Transition pathways describe the co-evolutionary routes by which a regime transformation unfolds, connecting actions and strategies across timescales. A pathway has an explicit normative orientation and a long-term vision as its endpoint; a scenario may be exploratory and value-neutral. See [[topics:scenarios|Scenarios]].
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 <WRAP distinction> <WRAP distinction>
-Niche vs. Regime \ +**Transition pathway vs. transition** \\ 
-The niche is the source of radical novelty (high uncertainty, low stability), while the regime is the source of incremental improvement (high stability, low novelty). Transitions occur when niche-logic replaces or reconfigures regime-logic. +A transition is the outcome — the systemic reconfiguration of a socio-technical regime. A transition pathway is the analytical description of the route through which that reconfiguration occurs. The same transition may be interpreted through different pathway types depending on which actors, pressures, and timescales are emphasised. See [[topics:transitions|Transitions]].
-</WRAP> +
- +
-<WRAP distinction> +
-Top-down vs. Bottom-up \ +
-Effective transition pathways often require a "hybrid" approach: top-down policy support (regime) combined with bottom-up experimentation and lifestyle changes (niche) to ensure legitimacy and resilience.+
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 ===== Related topics ===== ===== Related topics =====
  
-[[topics:mlp|Multi-Level Perspective]] · [[topics:transition_management|Transition Management]] · [[topics:sustainability_transitions|Sustainability Transitions]] · [[topics:niche_innovation|Niche Innovation]] · [[topics:governance|Governance]] · [[topics:resilience|Resilience]] · [[topics:climate_adaptation|Climate Adaptation]]+[[topics:transitions|Transitions]] · [[topics:scenarios|Scenarios]] · [[topics:governance|Governance]] · [[topics:innovation_policy|Innovation policy]] · [[topics:systems|Systems]] · [[topics:change|Change]] 
 + 
 +===== Topic notes ===== 
 + 
 +===== References ===== 
 + 
 +* Foxon, T. J. (2011). A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. //Ecological Economics//, 70(12), 2258–2267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.014 
 +* Foxon, T. J., Pearson, P. J. G., Arapostathis, S., Carlsson-Hyslop, A., & Thornton, J. (2013). Branching points for transition pathways: Assessing responses of actors to challenges on pathways to a low carbon future. //Energy Policy//, 52, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.030 
 +* Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. //Research Policy//, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 
 +* Pérez-Díaz, J. I., & Wilhelmi, J. R. (2010). Assessment of the economic impact of environmental constraints on short-term hydropower plant operation. //Energy Policy//, 38(12), 7960–7970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.029n|Climate Adaptation]]