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:transition_pathways [2026/04/21 14:40] – o.sachstopics:transition_pathways [2026/04/28 13:14] (current) – o.sachs
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 ===== Why this matters ===== ===== Why this matters =====
 +
 +Policy-makers face the challenge of meeting carbon reduction targets, which demand radical and disruptive changes to the energy system. When identifying transition pathways, focusing solely on technical and economic feasibility often falls short because it ignores the complex social dynamics and actor behaviors that drive change. A more comprehensive foundation for designing these pathways involves a multi-level perspective: examining the broad socio-technical landscape, analyzing the existing regime, and assessing the technological niches where radical innovations are developed. ((Foxon, T. J., Hammond, G. P., Pearson, P. J. G. (2010). Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UK. //Technological Forecasting & Social Change//, 77, 1203-1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.002))
  
 <WRAP callout> <WRAP callout>
-[To be drafted]+Transitional pathways show a route to follow in order to achieve a desirable outcome.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
Line 32: Line 34:
 In the context of climate change mitigation, the concept of "pathways" is frequently used to frame the challenge of transitioning to a low-carbon society. Rosenbloom (2017) identifies three core conceptions of pathways that emphasize different, yet interconnected, dimensions of this transition: socio-technical, techno-economic and biophysical. Socio-technical pathways focus on the unfolding patterns of change within societal systems as they evolve to meet human needs in a low-carbon manner. This perspective considers the interlocking nature of social and technical elements, including political, institutional, and cultural structures. A key analytical framework within this conception is the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), which explores the interactions between innovative "niches," the dominant "socio-technical regime," and the broader "landscape" to understand how established, carbon-intensive systems can be subverted and transformed. In contrast, techno-economic pathways stricly focus on outling the specific series of technical and financial changes required to move an industrial sector from its current setup to a sustainable, low-carbon future. Finally, biophysical pathways are long-term plans for greenhouse gas levels. They calculate the total amount of pollution the planet can handle to reach a specific temperature target. These pathways serve as a scientific foundation for global climate models. ((Rosenblum, D. (2017). Pathways: An emerging concept for the theory and governance of low-carbon transitions. //Global Enviromental Change//, 43, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.011)) In the context of climate change mitigation, the concept of "pathways" is frequently used to frame the challenge of transitioning to a low-carbon society. Rosenbloom (2017) identifies three core conceptions of pathways that emphasize different, yet interconnected, dimensions of this transition: socio-technical, techno-economic and biophysical. Socio-technical pathways focus on the unfolding patterns of change within societal systems as they evolve to meet human needs in a low-carbon manner. This perspective considers the interlocking nature of social and technical elements, including political, institutional, and cultural structures. A key analytical framework within this conception is the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), which explores the interactions between innovative "niches," the dominant "socio-technical regime," and the broader "landscape" to understand how established, carbon-intensive systems can be subverted and transformed. In contrast, techno-economic pathways stricly focus on outling the specific series of technical and financial changes required to move an industrial sector from its current setup to a sustainable, low-carbon future. Finally, biophysical pathways are long-term plans for greenhouse gas levels. They calculate the total amount of pollution the planet can handle to reach a specific temperature target. These pathways serve as a scientific foundation for global climate models. ((Rosenblum, D. (2017). Pathways: An emerging concept for the theory and governance of low-carbon transitions. //Global Enviromental Change//, 43, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.011))
  
-Recognizing that existing interpretations of transformation pathways often treat nature as a passive context, Andersson et al. (2024) propose a 'socio-techno-ecological' approach to sustainability transitions. They argue that ecological elements should not be viewed merely as background variables, but as active, interdependent components that co-evolve with social and technical systems throughout the transformation process. By integrating ecology within the analytical framework, this perspective seeks to better account for both the influence of natural resources on transitions and the environmental impacts resulting from them. ((Anderson, J., Lennerfors, T. T., Fornstedt, H. (2024). Towards a socio-techno-ecological approach to sustainability transitions. //Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions//, 51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100846))+Recognizing that existing interpretations of transformation pathways often treat nature as a passive context, Andersson et al. (2024) propose a 'socio-techno-ecological' approach to sustainability transitions. They argue that ecological elements should not be viewed merely as background variables, but as active, interdependent components that co-evolve with social and technical systems throughout the transformation process. By integrating ecology within the analytical framework, this perspective seeks to better account for the influence of natural resources on transitions and the environmental impacts resulting from them. ((Anderson, J., Lennerfors, T. T., Fornstedt, H. (2024). Towards a socio-techno-ecological approach to sustainability transitions. //Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions//, 51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100846))
  
  
Line 64: Line 66:
  
 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).)) 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).))
 +
 +====  Deep Transitions ====
 +
 +A Deep Transition is defined as a series of connected and sustained fundamental transformations across a wide range of socio-technical systems in a similar direction. The First Deep Transition describes the wave-like build-up of these system transformations during the 19th and 20th centuries; while it led to unprecedented wealth and welfare, it was characterized by a specific directionality based on fossil-fuel reliance, resource intensity, and a relentless focus on labor productivity. The Second Deep Transition represents a fundamental overhaul of these guiding principles to address the cumulative social and ecological consequences of the first phase: climate change, environmental degradation, social inequality, and persistent unemployment.
 +
 +Schot and Kanger (2018) conceptualize Deep Transitions by combining the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) with the Techno-Economic Paradigm (TEP) framework. While the MLP focuses on changes within individual systems, the TEP framework describes how technological innovation occurs in successive waves or surges, that reshape the entire economy and society. A Deep Transition is understood as the process in which these broad waves of innovation synchronize the development of multiple socio-technical systems simultaneously, leading to fundamental and long-lasting societal shifts over several centuries.((Schot, J., Kanger, L. (2018). Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality// Reseach Policy//, 47, 1045-1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.009))
 +
 +
 +{{ :topics:transitional_pathways_fig._3._long_term_continuity_in_deep_transition_dynamics..png?nolink&600 |}}
 +
 +<WRAP figure>
 +**Figure 1.** Long Term Continuity in Deep Transition Dynamics.\\
 +//Source: Schot, J., Kanger, L. (2018). (( Schot, J., Kanger, L. (2018). Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality// Reseach Policy//, 47, 1045-1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.009))//
 +</WRAP>
  
 ==== Four transition pathway types ==== ==== Four transition pathway types ====
Line 79: Line 95:
 | **Technological substitution** | Strong landscape pressure; niche innovations sufficiently developed | Niche innovations break through and replace the existing regime | | **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 | | **Reconfiguration** | Symbiotic niche innovations adopted to solve local problems | Innovations trigger further adjustments in the basic architecture of the regime incrementally |
 +
 +
  
 ==== Regime layers ==== ==== Regime layers ====
Line 95: Line 113:
  
 **Figure 1.** Transition pathways framework: 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))//+//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.2012.04.030))//
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
Line 102: Line 120:
  
 **Figure 2.** Ontological layers of a socio-technical energy regime.\\ **Figure 2.** Ontological layers of a socio-technical energy regime.\\
-//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))//+//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.2012.04.030))//
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
Line 108: Line 126:
  
 <WRAP perspectives> <WRAP perspectives>
 +
 ==== Actors and stakeholders ==== ==== Actors and stakeholders ====
  
Line 116: Line 135:
 <WRAP> <WRAP>
 {{ :topics:transitional_pathways_figure_1the_ssp_scenarios_and_their_five_socio-economic_ssp_families..png?600 |}} {{ :topics:transitional_pathways_figure_1the_ssp_scenarios_and_their_five_socio-economic_ssp_families..png?600 |}}
-<WRAP>+</WRAP>