This is an old revision of the document!
General Topics
Transitional Pathways
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.
Transitional pathways are defined by the timing and nature of interactions between niche-level innovations, regime-level stability, and landscape-level pressures.
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 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.
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.
Shared definitions
A typology of four primary sociotechnical transition pathways can be distinguished based on the nature of multi-level interactions:
Table 1. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways according to Geels and Schot (2007).\ Sources: Geels & Schot (2007); Research Policy 36(3).
| 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:
Table 2. Key terms in transition theory and pathway analysis.
| Concept | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sociotechnical Regime | The “deep structure” of a system: the shared rules, institutions, and practices that stabilize existing technologies. |
| 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. |
| Transition Management | A governance approach aimed at influencing the speed and direction of transitions through co-creation and experimentation. |
Perspectives
Transition pathways operate as a combination of actor-driven strategies, technical evolution, and institutional shifts.
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.”
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.
UK – Coal Industry Transition \ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Distinctions and overlaps
Pathways vs. Scenarios \ 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.
Niche vs. Regime \ 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.
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.