Reflections on using different theories for analysing and navigating sustainable transitions
Introduction
This is the 4th and final blog post of the series of blog posts investigating Copenhagen’s mobility system undertaking a transformation to a more sustainable state. While the first three posts aimed at investigating the particular transition and a specific case, this post will attempt to reflect upon the theories that were used in the process where the main question to answer will be:
"How do the different theories contribute to a better understanding on how to support transitions to sustainability?”
The structure of the blog post is as follows: each theory will be briefly described in relation to the case followed by reflections where three supportive questions will be the used as guiding principle for the text. Those questions are:
1. How does sustainability play out in each theory?
2. How should design be understood in each theory?
3. How can each theory contribute to sustainable design?
Multi-Level Perspective and Strategic Niche Management
Multi-level perspective (MLP) is a theory built on a quasi-evolutionary perspective where it distinguishes between three different levels: Regimes (The selection environment), Landscape (different environmental conditions that can affect the selection environment) and Niches (variations among different technologies, which try to disrupt the current socio-technical regime or reconfigure it) (Geels, 2005). To analyse a transition using MLP, there are three main elements to be explored: In the case of the transition in Copenhagen to a green mobility system, these elements could be categorised as
· The context (urban context – the environment)
· The element (Bicycle)
· And the fit between them
While MLP focuses more on describing existing socio-technical configurations and studies how transitions happen, the concept of Strategic Niche Management (SNM) focuses more on the role of niches and their ability to affect Regimes. Here it can be distinguished between two different strategies: Fit and Conform to the existing regime and Stretch and Transform the existing configuration to an entirely new state. Additionally, SNM focuses on the role of protecting those spaces where innovations can happen in order to influence the current urban context (Schot & Geels, 2008).
While MLP and SNM provide a good framework for analysing and describing existing transitions, the model’s ability to trigger change is limited in my opinion. Albeit, by understanding previous transitions, the MLP framework gives the understanding and possibility of identifying and analysing unsustainable states of current socio-technical settings. Even though, the theory in my opinion is limited in providing design solutions for sustainability transitions, it is a good starting point for understanding how transitions happen in order to be able to explore different design options in the future, which can contribute to better sustainability.
To put this into perspective, looking at the case of Copenhagen’s current socio-technical regime, the model helps to identify different forces shaping the set of current conditions and gives the opportunity to identify how to empower niche developments such as the bike: through improved infrastructure and making it difficult for car users in the city, in order to transform the regime.
Transition Management
Transition management - TM is a framework for governing sustainable development. The idea of TM is to set a long-term vision and back cast the process of reaching it by achieving short-term goals. To do this the authors of the theory recognise four different types of governance activities as part of a transition management cycle: Strategic, Tactical, Operational and Reflexive. The strategic activities deal with shaping the long-term sustainability vision, structure the problems to be resolved and organise the transition arena. The tactical activities deal with setting the agenda and develop the required transition pathways. The operational activities are characterised by the short-term experiments and goal achievements. Last but not least, the reflective activities relate to observing and evaluating the ongoing strategies and societal change (Loorbach, 2010).
Compared to the MLP and SNM, which are more descriptive in nature, TM is offering a more prescriptive approach to dealing with change. In my opinion, TM is best applied in combination with MLP, which provides a general understanding of how the regime is structured in order to trigger the necessary transition in a sustainable direction. Even though TM is said to arise when present regimes are put under pressure by external changes in society, I believe that if applied without the knowledge and understanding MLP provides about historical transformations, it runs the risk of dismissing external factors such as other potential landscape pressures, which could affect the transition in the future. It could also lead a change, which is hard to achieve in the long term if the transition team does not recognise the current structure of the socio-technical regime and the niches trying to challenge it.
In order to contribute to a sustainable design, the theory can be used both to set up the long term vision, but can also be helpful in the achievement of the short term goals. In the case of the green mobility transition, TM helps to set long-term visions such as Copenhagen carbon neutral by 2025 and helps to back cast the process of reaching this vision by achieving short term experiments such as different steps in infrastructure development, car taxations, limiting car parking space in the city and so on.
One of the limitations of the theory according to my understanding is that it does not acknowledge potential conflicting visions between different actors in the process of achieving the vision. Additionally, it allows for developing new projects and experiments in order to move to a more sustainable state, however it does not necessarily allow for a case-specific repair work. Therefore, this leads us to the last theory applied to analyse the transition in question: Arenas of Development, junctions, mediators and urban navigation.
Arenas of Development: junctions, mediators and urban navigation
Arenas of Development (AoD) is a theory influenced by Actor-Network theory as an inspiration and therefore assigns greater significance to actors, as they are formed in complex social configurations. Therefore, transitions and socio technical change depends largely on the interactions between different actors and actor constellations (Jorgensen & Sorensen, 2010). Additionally, the theory allows for identifying different conflicts between these actors and work towards a solution via including certain actor constellations, which support a sustainable transition, while excluding others which act as obstacles. Through the concepts of junctions and mediators (Jensen, Lauridsen, Fratini & Hoffmann, 2015), the theory allows for isolating specific cases and applying case specific repair work in a more sustainable state.
From a designer’s perspective, the theory helps specialists to design solutions which solve a particular problem, but are not necessarily applicable on a whole urban scale. Additionally, it allows for identification of actors involved and different configurations between actor worlds. Based on this identification and understanding, it allows designer specialists to intervene in the urban fabric for a more sustainable future. Additionally, included actors can evaluate the feasibility of such design interventions.
Conclusion
All above described theories contribute to the understanding and management of sustainable transitions, however some of them such as MLP offers a more descriptive approach to past events, while TM and AoD offer frameworks for action to transition to a more sustainable societal state. The scale at which each theory works is also different. MLP for example functions best when applied at a larger urban scale, while AoD for example deals with separate elements of the urban fabric. Additionally, while TM and AoD could both be used in a prescriptive way, they differ in the perspective through which they approach transitions. While TM sets a more holistic view for navigating transitions towards a future vision, AoD allows for smaller scale urban sites repair work.
In my opinion, the three theories used together could complement each other in understanding past transitions but also to challenge socio-technical assemblages and set pathways for action for a more sustainable future of the planet.
References
Geels, F. W. (2005). The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 445–476.
Jensen, J. S., Lauridsen, E. H., Fratini, C. F., & Hoffmann, B. (2015). Harbour bathing and the urban transition of water in Copenhagen: junctions, mediators, and urban navigations. Environment and Planning.
Jorgensen, U., & Sorensen, O. H. (2010). Arenas of Development - A Space Populated by Actor-worlds, Artefacts, and Surprises. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, pp. 409-429.
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Perspective, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, pp. 161-183.
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 537–554.
