Technology and Instrument Constituencies as Agents of Innovation: Sustainability Transitions and the Governance of Urban Transport
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Socio-Technical System in Urban Transport
- Public transport innovations: these include initiatives such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, which provide affordable and reliable urban transport service with relatively short implementation time and low capital cost [54], and the introduction of green propulsion technologies in buses.
- Intermodal travel: innovations in intermodal travel include schemes and policies aimed at integrating different systems of transport for the same trip [55], such as park and ride facilities, bike sharing schemes, intermodal ticketing, and smart cards.
- Cultural and socio-spatial innovation: this includes initiatives that challenge the automobility paradigm more fundamentally, such as compact cities, transit-oriented development, bike and car sharing
- Information and communication technologies: this category includes Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) that integrate smart devices in the transportation network to enable real time management of traffic as well as practices such as tele-working, tele-shopping, tele-conferencing.
- Demand management: initiatives in this category aim to reduce car use through changes in mobility demand and practices, such as public transport information and marketing and urban cycling initiatives.
3. Constituencies in Transitions
3.1. Instrument Constituencies
3.2. Technology Constituencies
4. The Relationship between Instrument and Technology Constituencies
5. Analyzing Constituencies to Govern Urban Transport
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Banister, D. Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 1–292. [Google Scholar]
- Woodcock, J.; Banister, D.; Edwards, P.; Prentice, A.M.; Roberts, I. Energy and transport. Lancet 2007, 370, 1078–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, L. Transport and climate change: A review. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, G.; Behrendt, H.; Teytelboym, A. Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 2010, 28, 46–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naci, H.; Chisholm, D.; Baker, T.D. Distribution of road traffic deaths by road user group: A global comparison. Inj. Prev. 2009, 15, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sperling, D.; Salon, D. Transportation in Developing Countries: An Overview of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies; Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Ecola, L.; Rohr, C.; Zmud, J.; Kuhnimhof, T.; Phleps, P. The Future of Driving in Developing Countries; The RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, R.; Rotmans, J. Managing the transition to sustainable mobility. In System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy; Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA; Cheltenham, UK, 2004; pp. 137–167. [Google Scholar]
- International Energy Agency. Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2017; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldman, T.; Gorham, R. Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technol. Soc. 2006, 28, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwanen, T.; Banister, D.; Anable, J. Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 993–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pangbourne, K.; Anable, J. Alternative travel futures. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1535–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rip, A.; Kemp, R. Technological change. In Human Choice and Climate Change, Resources and Technology; Rayner, S., Malone, L., Eds.; Battelle Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; Volume 2, pp. 327–399. [Google Scholar]
- Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2005, 17, 445–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nykvist, B.; Whitmarsh, L. A multi-level analysis of sustainable mobility transitions: Niche development in the UK and Sweden. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 1373–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwanen, T. Sociotechnical transition in the transport system. In Moving towards Low Carbon Mobility; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 231–254. [Google Scholar]
- Marsden, G.; May, A.D. Do institutional arrangements make a difference to transport policy and implementation? Lessons for Britain. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2006, 24, 771–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stead, D. Key research themes on governance and sustainable urban mobility. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stead, D.; Geerlings, H. Integrating transport, land use planning and environment policy. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2005, 18, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stead, D. Identifying key research themes for sustainable urban mobility. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anable, J.; Schwanen, T.; Banister, D. Climate Change, Energy and Transport: The Interviews. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 18, 669–678. [Google Scholar]
- Givoni, M.; Macmillen, J.; Banister, D.; Feitelson, E. From policy measures to policy packages. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, H. The governance of innovation in socio-technical systems: The difficulties of strategic niche management in practice. Sci. Public Policy 2007, 34, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shove, E.; Walker, G. Caution! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environ. Plan. A 2007, 39, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kern, F. Engaging with the politics, agency and structures in the technological innovation systems approach. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 16, 67–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meadowcroft, J. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Stirling, A.; Berkhout, F. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1491–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farla, J.; Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Coenen, L. Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budde, B.; Alkemade, F.; Weber, K.M. Expectations as a key to understanding actor strategies in the field of fuel cell and hydrogen vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1072–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakker, S.; van Lente, H.; Meeus, M.T.H. Credible expectations—The US department of energy’s hydrogen program as enactor and selector of hydrogen technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1059–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, S.; Maat, K.; van Wee, B. Stakeholders interests, expectations, and strategies regarding the development and implementation of electric vehicles: The case of the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 66, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheldrick, A.; Evans, J.; Schliwa, G. Policy learning and sustainable urban transitions: Mobilising Berlin’s cycling renaissance. Urban Stud. 2016, 54, 2739–2762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voß, J.-P.; Simons, A. Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environ. Politics 2014, 23, 735–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 955–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schot, J.; Geels, F.W. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2008, 20, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; van Asselt, M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight 2001, 3, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hekkert, M.P.; Suurs, R.A.A.; Negro, S.O.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R.E.H.M. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markard, J.; Hekkert, M.; Jacobsson, S. The technological innovation systems framework: Response to six criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 16, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoogma, R. Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management; Spon Press: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Urry, J. The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory Cult. Soc. 2004, 21, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bree, B.; Verbong, G.P.J.; Kramer, G.J. A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwanen, T. The bumpy road toward low-energy urban mobility: Case studies from two UK cities. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7086–7111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Wee, B.; Maat, K.; De Bont, C. Improving sustainability in urban areas: Discussing the potential for transforming conventional car-based travel into electric mobility. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sierzchula, W.; Bakker, S.; Maat, K.; van Wee, B. Technological diversity of emerging eco-innovations: A case study of the automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 37, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijk, M.; Orsato, R.J.; Kemp, R. The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, T.; Nelson, J.D. Recent developments in bus rapid transit: A review of the literature. Transp. Rev. 2011, 31, 69–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buehler, R.; Pucher, J.; Dümmler, O. Verkehrsverbund: The evolution and spread of fully integrated regional public transport in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.; Kemp, R.; Dudley, G.; Lyons, G. Automobility in Transition?: A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Whitmarsh, L. How useful is the multi-level perspective for transport and sustainability research? J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 24, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodson, M.; Geels, F.W.; McMeekin, A. Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability 2017, 9, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergek, A.; Jacobsson, S.; Sandén, B.A. ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive externalities’: Two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 20, 575–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Ven, A.H. Running in packs to develop knowledge-intensive technologies. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 365–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 2014, 31, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajer, M.A. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process; Clarendon: Oxford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Sabatier, P.A. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci. 1988, 21, 129–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weible, C.M. Instrument constituencies and the advocacy coalition framework: An essay on the comparisons, opportunities, and intersections. Policy Soc. 2018, 37, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simons, A.; Voß, J.-P. The concept of instrument constituencies: Accounting for dynamics and practices of knowing governance. Policy Soc. 2018, 37, 14–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, C.; Simons, A. Local emergence and international developments of conservation trading systems: Innovation dynamics and related problems. Environ. Conserv. 2015, 42, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Béland, D.; Howlett, M. How solutions chase problems: Instrument constituencies in the policy process. Governance 2016, 29, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voß, J.; Amelung, N. The innovation journey of “citizen panels”: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement in developing methods of public participation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2016, 46, 749–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amelung, N.; Grabner, L. Making citizen panels a ‘universal bestseller’. In The Professionalization of Public Participation; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; pp. 189–213. [Google Scholar]
- Perl, A.; Burke, M.I. Does institutional entrenchment shape instrument adjustment?: Assessing instrument constituency influences on American and Australian motor fuel taxation. Policy Soc. 2018, 37, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raven, R.; Kern, F.; Verhees, B.; Smith, A. Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2016, 18, 164–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garud, R.; Karnøe, P. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 277–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosman, R.; Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pistorius, T. Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2014, 13, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, H. Discourse and innovation journeys: The case of low energy housing in the UK. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 20, 613–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesch, U. Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W.; Verhees, B. Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys: A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945–1986). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 910–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Raven, R. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1025–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulmanen, J.H.; Verbong, G.P.J.; Raven, R.P.J.M. Biofuel developments in Sweden and the Netherlands: Protection and socio-technical change in a long-term perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1406–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppmann, J.; Huenteler, J.; Girod, B. Compulsive policy-making—The evolution of the German feed-in tariff system for solar photovoltaic power. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1422–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harborne, P.; Hendry, C.; Brown, J. The development and diffusion of radical technological innovation: The role of bus demonstration projects in commercializing fuel cell technology. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2007, 19, 167–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siemiatycki, M. The international diffusion of radical transportation policy: The case of congestion charging. Plan. Theory Pract. 2004, 5, 510–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Akyelken, N.; Banister, D.; Givoni, M. The sustainability of shared mobility in London: The dilemma for governance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermans, F.; van Apeldoorn, D.; Stuiver, M.; Kok, K. Niches and networks: Explaining network evolution through niche formation processes. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhees, B.; Raven, R.; Kern, F.; Smith, A. The role of policy in shielding, nurturing and enabling offshore wind in the Netherlands (1973–2013). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 816–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penna, C.C.R.; Geels, F.W. Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2012): An application and extension of the dialectic issue lifecycle (DILC) model. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1029–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hysing, E. From government to governance? A comparison of environmental governing in Swedish forestry and transport. Governance 2009, 22, 647–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treib, O.; Bähr, H.; Falkner, G. Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. J. Eur. Public Policy 2007, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geerlings, H.; Stead, D. The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research. Transp. Policy 2003, 10, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, H.S.; Vergragt, P.; Green, K.; Berchicci, L. Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2003, 15, 291–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ieromonachou, P.; Potter, S.; Enoch, M. Adapting strategic niche management for evaluating radical transport policies––the case of the Durham road access charging scheme. Int. J. Transp. Manag. 2004, 2, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, R.R.; Farrelly, M.A.; Loorbach, D.A. Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 701–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, S.; van Lente, H.; Engels, R. Competition in a technological niche: The cars of the future. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 24, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Goyal, N.; Howlett, M. Technology and Instrument Constituencies as Agents of Innovation: Sustainability Transitions and the Governance of Urban Transport. Energies 2018, 11, 1198. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051198
Goyal N, Howlett M. Technology and Instrument Constituencies as Agents of Innovation: Sustainability Transitions and the Governance of Urban Transport. Energies. 2018; 11(5):1198. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051198
Chicago/Turabian StyleGoyal, Nihit, and Michael Howlett. 2018. "Technology and Instrument Constituencies as Agents of Innovation: Sustainability Transitions and the Governance of Urban Transport" Energies 11, no. 5: 1198. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051198