Fudamental distinctions and definitions can be found in pathways

4 different transition pathways were identified

“Transformation path”: If there is moderate landscape pressure (‘disruptive change’) at a moment when niche-innovations have not yet been sufficiently developed, then regime actors will respond by modifying the direction of development paths and innovation activities. A historical example is the adoption of sewage and drainage systems in cities.

“De-alignment and re-alignment path”: If landscape change is divergent, large and sudden (‘avalanche change’), then increasing regime problems may cause regime actors to lose faith. This leads to de-alignment and erosion of the regime. A historical example here is the transition in urban mobility from horse transport to the motor car, with railways, trams and buses as intermediate systems.

  “Technological substitution”: If there is much landscape pressure (‘specific shock’, ‘avalanche change’, ‘disruptive change’) at a moment when niche innovations have developed sufficiently, the latter will break through and replace the existing regime. (This means that a niche has coexisted with a regime for some time and then changes in the context of society give the niche an advantage which enables it to take over. The historical example here is the transition from sailing ships to steam ships.

  “Reconfiguration pathway”: Symbiotic innovations, which developed in niches, are initially adopted in the regime to solve local problems. They subsequently trigger further adjustments in the basic architecture of the regime. Here, the historical example is the change from industrial production in workshops to mass production methods.

[Source: Geels F.W. and Schot J. (2007), Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36 399–417]

Timothy Foxon outlines four ontological layers or spheres of a socio-technical regime (in his case of the energy PCS) that interact with each other. The layers make up the arena in which cumulative causation may lead to transformation. As such, the ontological layers and the representation as complex system helps to understand how structures and processes are permanently sustained in established regimes or how they may be destabilised through external factors. 

“Pathways are bun­dles of strategies and actions that support the achievement of a long-term vision. The approach has been used in other studies (Rosenbloom 2017;Wiseet al. 2014) since it aids thinking about actions for responding proactively to complex problems like climate change (Frantzeskaki et al. 2012a; Leach et al. 2010; Tabara et al. 2018;Wiseetal. 2014) while considering the synergistic and progressive effect of short-term, medium­term and long-term actions (Frantzeskaki et al. 2012b). The pathways approach has been adopted within climate change research to enable policy-relevant research (Haasnoot et al. 2013;Wise et al. 2014) from an integrated systemic perspec­tive (Leach et al. 2010; Turnheim et al. 2015) and with an explicit normative orientation (Ferguson et al. 2013; Frantzeskaki et al. 2012b; Geels et al. 2016; Rosenbloom 2017, p.39). The use of a long-term vision as the endpoint of the pathways provides strong guidance regarding the actions that need to be taken, and the pathways demonstrate the mul­titude of actions needed for a more sustainable future (Luederitz et al. 2017). Furthermore, pathways can position actions in response to climate change in relation to, and not separate from, social, cultural, political, economic and institu­tional contexts (Foxon 2013;Haasnootet al. 2013;Nevens et al. 2013;Rosenbloom 2017;Wiseetal. 2014).”

[Source: Frantzeskaki, Niki, et al. “Transition Pathways to Sustainability in Greater than 2 °C Climate Futures of Europe.” Regional Environmental Change, vol. 19, no. 3, 2019, pp. 777–89, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01475-x.]

Pathways (how do we get there?): The pathways include short-, medium- and long-term actions clustered in strategies that respond to specific vision elements. Pathways include sectoral or cross-sectoral and multi-actor strategies that demonstrate how to achieve the vision (or specific vision elements) in the context of high-end scenarios.

[Source: Hölscher, K. et al. ‘Adaptation and Mitigation Pathways, and Synergy Mechanisms between Them, for the Case Studies’. Project Deliverable D4.2. European Commission Contract N° 603416 Collaborative Project FP7 Environment. IMPRESSIONS, 20 October 2017.]

The Socio-technical Energy Regime consist of the following four layers:

• the Institutional Arena (socio-economic meso-level), a layer of regulatory frameworks, legal rule games, actor networks, market institutions and policy/governance structures 
• the Socio-economic Actors‘ Layer (socio-economic micro-level), a layer, which consists of actors (now the incumbent actors and in the future new actors) in the energy system with their strategies, want, needs, practices and routines, which are acting on and benefiting from
• the Functional Layer (socio-technical micro-level), with basic functions of the energy systems which, in the current energy regime, with strong centralised components: those functions are a) mainly centralised energy generation, b) grids for transmission and distribution of energy and c) end-use.
  

In the new energy regime, with an expected high share of distributed renewable energy resources, we describe the basic functions more broadly as a) concentrated and distributed energy generation, b) integrated energy logistics including storages and conversion between energy carriers, c) and services to people and economic actors which are dependent on the use of energy

• The Artefactual Layer (socio-technical infrastructure level) of hard-and software infrastructure, to provide the basis for the realisation of the functions of the energy system. This currently encompasses the energy infrastructure, which in the most socio-technical visions is expected to transform into a cyber-physical energy infrastructure.

Transition Pathways outline co-evolutionary developments at/between the four regime-layers, which are consistent with, and dependent on the framework conditions. These framework conditions are taking place at the two other levels, which are considered in the MLP approach, i.e. Landscape and Niche.

Landscape-Level:
The regime change is based on Landscape factors. Conceptually, we differentiate the STEEPV categories to cover the whole range of systemic factors and drivers of change. Conceptually, they are considered as those long-term cultural (societal) and biophysical (including climate change impacts) framework conditions, which influence the energy regime, without being structurally influenced by the regime change within the given time horizon of 2050.

Niche-Level:
From below, niche-developments, as components of system innovation, play a role in changing the future Energy Regime. Niches, or Innovation-Eco-System, provides the space for and drivers of change in terms of institutional, social, technological and business innovation and experimentation at the levels of institutional arena, socio-economic / socio-technical micro-levels and the energy infrastructure-level.

The conceptual framework is consistent with the Sustainable Transition literature. It builds on the work of Foxon et al. (2013) and the underlying multi-level-perspective (MLP of landscape-regime-niche by Geels 2006). Figure 1 shows the conceptual basis for outlining the elements, factors and drivers determining potential Transition Pathways towards a new socio-technical Energy Regime.

[Source: Kubeczko, K., 2022. Transformative Readiness - Unpacking the technological and non-technological aspects of sustainability transitions. Presented at the IST 2023.]

Dynamics within the Governance layer (GL):

social grid is made up and may be changed through dynamics between 3 elements: (1) social networks of relations and interactions, (2) formal and informal institutions and (3) collective mental frames on which policies and shared understanding of the internal working of the PCS are built.

Dynamics within the Actors layer (AL),

are laid out as socio-economic acting of agents on their strategies , wants & needs as well as social and economic practices (habits, routines, techniques,…) making up the mode of production and consumption.

Dynamics within the socio-technical layer (S-TL)

play out as functional structures and mechanisms of extraction, transformation, production, maintenance, interaction, transportation, storage, exchange and use of matter and information.

Dynamics within the socio-ecological layer (S-EL)

play out in the overlap of bio-physical foundation (as primary materials, net primary production from the sun like crops) and the biophysical-compartments of society (artefactual infrastructure like buildings and large network infrastructures as well as lifestock). It is represented by stocks and flows of matter and energy.

Dynamics and nexus between layers:

We assume that in such a complex system like a PCS, one way is that change may be triggered by innovation in niches, which focuses on, or impacts processes in particular layers (GL, AL, S-TL, S-EL) initially. A nexus can be made due to stabilising effect of dynamics between the layers. Enduring change within the PCS is only achieved through cumulative causations, meaning that elements at GL, AL, S-TL, S-EL interact in reinforcing ways (virtuous circles as opposed to vicious circles).

[Source: Kubeczko, K., 2022. Transformative Readiness - Unpacking the technological and non-technological aspects of sustainability transitions. Presented at the IST 2023.]

~~DISCUSSION|Discussion Section - PAGE OWNER: Klaus Kubeczko~~