TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways
T2 - Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges
AU - Turnheim, Bruno
AU - Berkhout, Frans
AU - Geels, Frank
AU - Hof, Andries
AU - McMeekin, Andy
AU - Nykvist, Björn
AU - van Vuuren, Detlef
PY - 2015/11/1
Y1 - 2015/11/1
N2 - The paper sets out a proposal for bridging and linking three approaches to the analysis of transitions to sustainable and low-carbon societies: quantitative systems modelling; socio-technical transition analysis; and initiative-based learning. We argue that each of these approaches presents a partial and incomplete picture, which has implications for the quality and usefulness of the insights they can deliver for policy and practice. A framework for bridging these different approaches promises to enrich each of the approaches, while providing the basis for a more robust and complete analysis of sustainable transitions pathways that serves better to address questions and dilemmas faced by decision-makers and practitioners. We elaborate five key challenges for the analysis and governance of transitions pathways, and compare the three approaches in relation to each of these. We suggest an integration strategy based on alignment, bridging, and iteration, arguing that a structured dialogue between practitioners of different approaches is needed. In practical terms, such a dialogue would be organised around three areas of joint knowledge production: defining common analytical or governance problems to be tackled through integration; establishing shared concepts (boundary objects); and establishing operational bridging devices (data and metrics, pathways evaluation and their delivery). Such processes could include experts and societal partners. We draw conclusions about future research perspectives and the role of analysis in transitions governance.
AB - The paper sets out a proposal for bridging and linking three approaches to the analysis of transitions to sustainable and low-carbon societies: quantitative systems modelling; socio-technical transition analysis; and initiative-based learning. We argue that each of these approaches presents a partial and incomplete picture, which has implications for the quality and usefulness of the insights they can deliver for policy and practice. A framework for bridging these different approaches promises to enrich each of the approaches, while providing the basis for a more robust and complete analysis of sustainable transitions pathways that serves better to address questions and dilemmas faced by decision-makers and practitioners. We elaborate five key challenges for the analysis and governance of transitions pathways, and compare the three approaches in relation to each of these. We suggest an integration strategy based on alignment, bridging, and iteration, arguing that a structured dialogue between practitioners of different approaches is needed. In practical terms, such a dialogue would be organised around three areas of joint knowledge production: defining common analytical or governance problems to be tackled through integration; establishing shared concepts (boundary objects); and establishing operational bridging devices (data and metrics, pathways evaluation and their delivery). Such processes could include experts and societal partners. We draw conclusions about future research perspectives and the role of analysis in transitions governance.
KW - Governance
KW - Modelling
KW - Socio-technical
KW - Sustainability transitions
KW - Transition pathways
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942508467&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.010
DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.010
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84942508467
SN - 0959-3780
VL - 35
SP - 239
EP - 253
JO - Global Environmental Change
JF - Global Environmental Change
ER -