Technological transitions

Last updated

Technological transitions (TT) can best be described as a collection of theories regarding how technological innovations occur, the driving forces behind them, and how they are incorporated into society. [1] TT draws on a number of fields, including history of science, technology studies, and evolutionary economics. Alongside the technological advancement, TT considers wider societal changes such as "user practices, regulation, industrial networks (supply, production, distribution), infrastructure, and symbolic meaning or culture". [2] Hughes [3] refers to the 'seamless web' where physical artifacts, organizations, scientific communities, and social practices combine. A technological transition occurs when there is a major shift in these socio-technical configurations. [2] [4]

Contents

Origins

Work on technological transitions draws on a number of fields including history of science, technology studies, and evolutionary economics. [2] The focus of evolutionary economics is on economic change, but as a driver of this technological change has been considered in the literature. [5] Joseph Schumpeter, in his classic Theory of Economic Development [6] placed the emphasis on non-economic forces as the driver for growth. The human actor, the entrepreneur is seen as the cause of economic development which occurs as a cyclical process. Schumpeter proposed that radical innovations were the catalyst for Kondratiev cycles.

Long wave theory

The Russian economist Kondratiev [7] proposed that economic growth operated in boom and bust cycles of approximately 50 year periods. These cycles were characterised by periods of expansion, stagnation and recession. The period of expansion is associated with the introduction of a new technology, e.g. steam power or the microprocessor. At the time of publication, Kondratiev had considered that two cycles had occurred in the nineteenth century and third was beginning at the turn of the twentieth. Modern writers, such as Freeman and Perez [8] outlined five cycles in the modern age:

Freeman and Perez [8] proposed that each cycle consists of pervasive technologies, their production and economic structures that support them. Termed 'techno-economic paradigms', they suggest that the shift from one paradigm to another is the result of emergent new technologies.

Following the recent economic crisis, authors such as Moody and Nogrady [9] have suggested that a new cycle is emerging from the old, centred on the use of sustainable technologies in a resource depleted world.

Technological paradigms, trajectories and regimes

Thomas Kuhn [10] described how a paradigm shift is a wholesale shift in the basic understanding of a scientific theory. Examples in science include the change of thought from miasma to germ theory as a cause of disease. Building on this work, Giovanni Dosi [11] developed the concept of 'technical paradigms' and 'technological trajectories'. In considering how engineers work, the technical paradigm is an outlook on the technological problem, a definition of what the problems and solutions are. It charts the idea of specific progress. By identifying the problems to be solved the paradigm exerts an influence on technological change. The pattern of problem solving activity and the direction of progress is the technological trajectory. In similar fashion, Nelson and Winter (, [12] [13] )defined the concept of the 'technological regime' which directs technological change through the beliefs of engineers of what problems to solve. The work of the actors and organisations is the result of organisational and cognitive routines which determines search behaviour. This places boundaries and also trajectories (direction) to those boundaries.

Multi-level perspective (MLP) on technological transitions

Socio-technical systems and transitions

Recently, the scope of academic sustainability discourse and investigative focus has broadened beyond the study of technological products, innovations and subsequent transitions. [14] Much of the literature now examines technological artefacts and innovations through a wider scope of socio-technical systems. [15] It has been argued that this contemporary framework has emerged in response to both an increased understanding of the urgency of environmental problems and the recognition that more substantiative transitions are required across multiple interdependent systems to mitigate impacts. [16]

The technological transitions framework does acknowledge the co-evolution and mutual unfolding of societal change alongside technological innovation. However, the socio-technical transitions framework considers a more encompassing view of the interdependent links that technology maintains with systems that both generate the need for new innovations and ultimately produce and maintain them. [17] More specifically, the systems that comprise the socio-technical paradigm include technology, supply networks, infrastructure, maintenance networks, regulation, cultural meaning as well as user practices and markets. [18] As such, socio-technical transitions can be defined as the multi-dimensional shift from one socio-technical system to another involving changes in both technological and social systems that are intrinsically linked in a feedback loop. [14] Generally speaking, socio-technical transitions are a slow process as technological innovation tends to occur incrementally along fixed trajectories due to the rigidity of economic, social, cultural, infrastructural and regulative norms. [19] This is referred to as path dependency, creating technological 'lock-ins' which prevent innovation that disrupts the status quo. [20] Therefore, the breakthrough and dissemination of technological innovations is dependent on more than their respective benefits, providing an insight into the complexity of the forces and multiple dimensions at play.

Multi-level perspective (MLP) framework

The multi-level perspective (MLP) is an analytical tool that attempts to deal with this complexity and resistance to change. Focussing on the dynamics of wider transitionary developments as opposed to discrete technological innovations, the MLP concerns itself with socio-technical system transformations, particularly with transitions towards sustainability and resilience. [21] As the name implies, the MLP posits three analytical and heuristic levels on which processes interact and align to result in socio-technical system transformations; landscape (macro-level), regimes (meso-level) and niches (micro-level). [22] Firstly, the regime level represents the current structures and practices characterised by dominant rules, institutions and technologies that are self-reinforcing. [23] The socio-technical regime is dynamically stable in the sense that innovation still transpires albeit incrementally and along a predictable trajectory. [14] This makes the regime 'locked-in' and resistant to both technological and social transitions. [24] Secondly, the landscape level is defined as the exogenous, broader contextual developments in deep-seated cultural patterns, macro-economics, macro-politics and spatial structures, potentially arising from shocks associated with wars, economic crisis, natural disaster and political upheaval. [25] Additionally, landscapes are beyond the direct influence of actors, yet stimulate and exert pressure on them at the regime and niche levels. Finally, the niche is defined as the "locus for radical innovations" where dedicated actors nurture the development of technological novelties. [26] Incubated from market and regulation influences, the niche fosters innovations that differ fundamentally from the prevailing regime and usually require landscape developments that open windows of opportunity in at the regime level. [19] Therefore, the MLP attributes socio-technical transitions to the interaction of stabilising forces at the regime level with destabilising forces from both the landscape and niche levels. [20]

MLP application - automobility regime

Due to the systems approach inherent in the MLP, analysis can be approached from different disciplinary perspectives according to their respective ontologies and priorities. From an urban planning perspective, the framework could be used to pinpoint the barriers and drivers associated with low carbon transport systems to better target policy efforts. [27] To begin, from an urban mobility perspective, the landscape level is currently pressured by both stabilising and destabilising pressures. Namely, Peak Oil, public concern surrounding inaction towards climate change mitigation and information technologies that digitise daily life (e.g. tele-commuting) destabilises the landscape and automobility regime. [28] Conversely, the landscape level is solidified by stabilising forces such as cultural preferences for private ownership, timesaving, autonomy and privacy, as well as car-favouring urban fabric and infrastructure. [29] This is further enhanced by universal pressures of globalisation which presupposes urban mobility to increase flows of goods and people. [28]

This tension between stabilising and destabilising forces is mirrored in the prevailing automobility regime. The regime is stabilised by persistent investment in road projects, lifestyle norms and consumer preferences that perpetuate car use and resistance to major change by vested actors such as transport planners, policy makers and industry actors (e.g. car manufactures). [29] Despite this stability, shifts in the landscape has allowed "cracks" in the regime such as traffic management policy (traffic calming, parking restrictions, etc.), diminishing policy commitment to the regime and industry actors proclaiming awareness of landscape pressures associated with climate change [30]

In these contexts, niche socio-technical innovations that challenge the assumptions and norms of the regime have been birthed, mainly in the form of local policy and infrastructure initiatives on a city-scale. For example, intermodal travel in the form of bus/bike-rail integration schemes, bike rental/sharing have been trialled in many cities globally. [29] Also, niche sustainable urban planning concepts such as compact cities, smart growth and transit-oriented development have modestly emerged into sustainably mobility discourse. [29] However, the persistence of the automobility regime due to the general stability of the landscape has resulted in limited, small-scale implementations of these niche innovations. [29] As such, prevailing user preference and cultural values at the landscape level appear to be a major barrier in transport system socio-technical transitions, as they stabilise the automobility regime, disallowing niche innovations to gain a foothold.

Transition paths

The nature of transitions varies and the differing qualities result in multiple pathways occurring. Geels and Schot [31] defined five transition paths:

Characteristics of technological transitions

Six characteristics of technological transitions have been identified., [1] [32]

Transitions are co-evolutionary and multi-dimensional Technological developments occur intertwined with societal needs, wants and uses. A technology is adopted and diffused based on this interplay between innovation and societal requirements. Co-evolution has different aspects. As well as the co-evolution of technology and society, aspects between science, technology, users and culture have been considered. [5]

Multi-actors are involved Scientific and engineering communities are central to the development of a technology, but a wide range of actors are involved in a transition. This can include organisations, policy-makers, government, NGOs, special interest groups and others.

Transitions occur at multiple levels As shown in the MLP, transitions occur through the interplay of processes at different levels.

Transitions are a long-term process Complete system-change takes time and can be decades in the making. Case studies show them to be between 40 and 90 years. [33]

Transitions are radical For a true transition to occur the technology has to be a radical innovation.

Change is Non-linear The rate of change will vary over time. For example, the pace of change may be slow at the gestation period (at the niche level) but much more rapid when a breakthrough is occurring.

Diffusion: transition phases

Diffusion of an innovation is the concept of how it is picked up by society, at what rate and why. [34] The diffusion of a technological innovation into society can be considered in distinct phases. [35] Pre-development is the gestation period where the new technology has yet to make an impact. Take-off is when the process of a system shift is beginning. A breakthrough is occurring when fundamental changes are occurring in existing structures through the interplay of economic, social and cultural forces. Once the rate of change has decreased and a new balance is achieved, stabilization is said to have occurred. A full transition involves an overhaul of existing rules and change of beliefs which takes time, typically spanning at least a generation. [35] This process can be speeded up through seismic, unforeseen events such as war or economic strife.

Geels [5] proposed a similar four-phase approach which draws on the multi-level perspective (MLP) developed by Dutch scholars. Phase one sees the emergence of a novelty, born from the existing regime. Development then occurs in the niche level at phase two. As before, breakthrough then occurs at phase three. In the parlance of the MLP the new technology, having been developed at the niche level, is in competition with the established regime. To break through and achieve wide diffusion, external factors – 'windows of opportunity' – are required.

Windows of opportunity

A number of possible circumstances can act as windows of opportunity for the diffusion of new technologies:

Alongside external influences, internal drivers catalyse diffusion. [5] These include economic factors such as the price performance ration. Socio-technical perspectives focus on the links between disparate social and technological elements. [36] Following the breakthrough, the final phases see the new technology supersede the old.

Societal relevance

The study of technological transitions has an impact beyond academic interest. The transitions referred to in the literature may relate to historic processes, such as the transportation transitions studied by Geels, but system changes are required to achieve a safe transition to a low-carbon economy. ( [1] [5] ). Current structural problems are apparent in a range of sectors. [5] Dependency on oil is problematic in the energy sector due to availability, access and contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Transportation is a major user of energy causing significant emission of GHGs. Food production will need to keep pace with an ever-growing world population while overcoming challenges presented by global warming and transportation issues. Incremental change has provided some improvements but a more radical transition is required to achieve a more sustainable future.

Developed from the work on technological transitions is the field of transition management. Within this is an attempt to shape the direction of change complex socio-technical systems to more sustainable patterns. [1] Whereas work on technological transitions is largely based on historic processes, proponents of transition management seek to actively steer transitions in progress.

Criticisms

Genus and Coles [33] outlined a number of criticisms against the analysis of technological transitions, in particular when using the MLP. Empirical research on technological transitions occurring now has been limited, with the focus on historic transitions. Depending on the perspective on transition case studies they could be presented as having occurred on a different transition path to what was shown. For example, the bicycle could be considered an intermediate transport technology between the horse and the car. Judged from shorter different time-frame this could appear a transition in its own right. Determining the nature of a transition is problematic; when it started and ended, or whether one occurred in the sense of a radical innovation displacing an existing socio-technical regime. The perception of time casts doubt on whether a transition has occurred. If viewed over a long enough period even inert regimes may demonstrate radical change in the end. The MLP has also been criticised by scholars studying sustainability transitions using Social Practice Theories. [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kondratiev wave</span> Hypothesized cycle-like phenomena in the modern world economy

In economics, Kondratiev waves are hypothesized cycle-like phenomena in the modern world economy. The phenomenon is closely connected with the technology life cycle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disruptive innovation</span> Technological change

In business theory, disruptive innovation is innovation that creates a new market and value network or enters at the bottom of an existing market and eventually displaces established market-leading firms, products, and alliances. The term, "disruptive innovation" was popularized by the American academic Clayton Christensen and his collaborators beginning in 1995, but the concept had been previously described in Richard N. Foster's book "Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage" and in the paper Strategic Responses to Technological Threats.

Business cycles are intervals of general expansion followed by recession in economic performance. The changes in economic activity that characterize business cycles have important implications for the welfare of the general population, government institutions, and private sector firms. There are numerous specific definitions of what constitutes a business cycle. The simplest and most naïve characterization comes from regarding recessions as 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. More satisfactory classifications are provided by, first including more economic indicators and second by looking for more informative data patterns than the ad hoc 2 quarter definition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carlota Perez</span> Venezuelan economist (born 1939)

Carlota Perez is a British-Venezuelan scholar specialized in technology and socio-economic development. She researches the concept of Techno-Economic Paradigm Shifts and the theory of great surges, a further development of Schumpeter's work on Kondratieff waves. In 2012 she was awarded the Silver Kondratieff Medal by the International N. D. Kondratieff Foundation and in 2021 she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Utrecht University.

Leapfrogging is a concept used in many domains of the economics and business fields, and was originally developed in the area of industrial organization and economic growth. The main idea behind the concept of leapfrogging is that small and incremental innovations lead a dominant firm to stay ahead. However, sometimes, radical innovations will permit new firms to leapfrog the ancient and dominant firm. The phenomenon can occur to firms but also to leadership of countries or cities, where a developing country can skip stages of the path taken by industrial nations, enabling them to catch up sooner, particularly in terms of economic growth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Erich Jantsch</span> American astrophysicist

Erich Jantsch was an American astrophysicist, engineer, educator, author, consultant and futurist, especially known for his work in the social systems design movement in Europe in the 1970s.

Giovanni Dosi is Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute of Economics at the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna in Pisa. He is the Co-Director of the task forces “Industrial Policy” and “Intellectual Property” at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University. Dosi is Continental European Editor of Industrial and Corporate Change. Included in ISI Highly Cited Researchers.

Jeong-dong Lee is a Korean academic currently serving as the Special Advisor to the President on Economy and Science since his appointment by President Moon Jae-in in January 2019. He is a professor of Interdisciplinary Graduate Program on Technology Management, Economics and Policy (TEMEP) and the Department of Industrial Engineering at Seoul National University, Korea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Technology dynamics</span> Scientific field

Technology dynamics is broad and relatively new scientific field that has been developed in the framework of the postwar science and technology studies field. It studies the process of technological change. Under the field of Technology Dynamics the process of technological change is explained by taking into account influences from "internal factors" as well as from "external factors". Internal factors relate technological change to unsolved technical problems and the established modes of solving technological problems and external factors relate it to various (changing) characteristics of the social environment, in which a particular technology is embedded.

Innovation economics is new, and growing field of economic theory and applied/experimental economics that emphasizes innovation and entrepreneurship. It comprises both the application of any type of innovations, especially technological, but not only, into economic use. In classical economics this is the application of customer new technology into economic use; but also it could refer to the field of innovation and experimental economics that refers the new economic science developments that may be considered innovative. In his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, economist Joseph Schumpeter introduced the notion of an innovation economy. He argued that evolving institutions, entrepreneurs and technological changes were at the heart of economic growth. However, it is only in recent years that "innovation economy," grounded in Schumpeter's ideas, has become a mainstream concept".

The technological innovation system is a concept developed within the scientific field of innovation studies which serves to explain the nature and rate of technological change. A Technological Innovation System can be defined as ‘a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology’.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Technological revolution</span> Period of rapid technological change

A technological revolution is a period in which one or more technologies is replaced by another novel technology in a short amount of time. It is a time of accelerated technological progress characterized by innovations whose rapid application and diffusion typically cause an abrupt change in society.

Tessaleno Campos Devezas is a Brazilian-born Portuguese physicist, systems theorist, and materials scientist. He is best known for his contributions to the long waves theory in socioeconomic development, technological evolution, energy systems as well as world system analysis.

A reverse salient refers to a component of a technological system that, due to its insufficient development, prevents the system in its entirety from achieving its development goals. The term was coined by Thomas P. Hughes, in his work Networks of power: Electrification in western society, 1880-1930.

Transition management is a governance approach that aims to facilitate and accelerate sustainability transitions through a participatory process of visioning, learning and experimenting. In its application, transition management seeks to bring together multiple viewpoints and multiple approaches in a 'transition arena'. Participants are invited to structure their shared problems with the current system and develop shared visions and goals which are then tested for practicality through the use of experimentation, learning and reflexivity. The model is often discussed in reference to sustainable development and the possible use of the model as a method for change.

Transition scenarios are descriptions of future states which combine a future image with an account of the changes that would need to occur to reach that future. These two elements are often created in a two-step process where the future image is created first (envisioning) followed by an exploration of the alternative pathways available to reach the future goal (backcasting). Both these processes can use participatory techniques where participants of varying backgrounds and interests are provided with an open and supportive group environment to discuss different contributing elements and actions.

The sailing ship effect is a phenomenon by which the introduction of a new technology to a market accelerates the innovation of an incumbent technology. Despite the fact that the term was coined by W.H. Ward in 1967 the concept was made clear much earlier in a book by S.C. Gilfillan entitled “Inventing the ship” published in 1935. The name of the “effect” is due to the reference to advances made in sailing ships in the second half of the 1800s in response to the introduction of steamships. According to Ward, in the 50 years after the introduction of the steam ship, sailing ships made more improvements than they had in the previous 300 years. The term “Sailing Ship Effect” applies to situations in which an old technology is revitalized, experiencing a “last gasp” when faced with the risk of being replaced by a newer technology. Here is how Gilfillan put it: ”It is paradoxical, but on examination logical, that this noble flowering of the sailing ship, this apotheosis during her decline and just before extermination, was partly vouchsafed by her supplanter, the steamer.”.

Johannes Willem "Johan" Schot is a Dutch historian working in the field of science and technology policy. A historian of technology and an expert in sustainability transitions, Johan Schot is Professor of Global Comparative History at the Centre for Global Challenges, Utrecht University. He is the Academic Director of the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) and former Director of the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex. He was elected to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in 2009. He is the Principal Investigator of the Deep Transitions Lab.

Eco-restructuring is the implication for an ecologically sustainable economy. The principle of ecological modernization establishes the core literature of the functions that eco-restructuring has within a global regime. Eco-restructuring has an emphasis on the technological progressions within an ecological system. Government officials implement environmental policies to establish the industrial- ecological progressions that enable the motion of economic modernization. When establishing economic growth, policy makers focus on the progression towards a sustainable environment by establishing a framework of ecological engineering. Government funding is necessary when investing in efficient technologies to stimulate technological development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Green industrial policy</span> Strategic government policy

Green industrial policy (GIP) is strategic government policy that attempts to accelerate the development and growth of green industries to transition towards a low-carbon economy. Green industrial policy is necessary because green industries such as renewable energy and low-carbon public transportation infrastructure face high costs and many risks in terms of the market economy. Therefore, they need support from the public sector in the form of industrial policy until they become commercially viable. Natural scientists warn that immediate action must occur to lower greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. Social scientists argue that the mitigation of climate change requires state intervention and governance reform. Thus, governments use GIP to address the economic, political, and environmental issues of climate change. GIP is conducive to sustainable economic, institutional, and technological transformation. It goes beyond the free market economic structure to address market failures and commitment problems that hinder sustainable investment. Effective GIP builds political support for carbon regulation, which is necessary to transition towards a low-carbon economy. Several governments use different types of GIP that lead to various outcomes. The Green Industry plays a pivotal role in creating a sustainable and environmentally responsible future; By prioritizing resource efficiency, renewable energy, and eco-friendly practices, this industry significantly benefits society and the planet at large.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Evans, J. P. (2011). Environmental Governance. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. ISBN   978-0-203-15567-7. OCLC   798531922.
  2. 1 2 3 Geels, F. W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Research Policy 31 pp. 257-1273
  3. ↑ Hughes, T.P., 1987. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T. (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. pp. 51-82
  4. ↑ Fleck, J., 1993. 'Configurations: Crystallizing Contingency', The International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3, pp. 15-36
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Geels, F.W., 2005. Technological transitions and system innovations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  6. ↑ Schumpeter, T., 1934. The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
  7. ↑ Kondratiev, N., 1925. Major Economic Cycles. Moscow.
  8. 1 2 Freeman, C. and Perez, C., 1988. Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour in Dosi et al Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Frances Pinter. pp. 38-66.
  9. ↑ Moody, J.B., and Nogrady, B., 2011. The Sixth Wave: How to Succeed in a Resource-Limited World. New York: Random House
  10. ↑ Kuhn, T., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago; London : University of Chicago Press
  11. ↑ Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy 11 (3) pp. 147-162.
  12. ↑ Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1977. In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy 6 (1) pp. 36-76
  13. ↑ Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge (MA); Bellknap Press.
  14. 1 2 3 (Geels 2005)
  15. ↑ (Geels 2018)
  16. ↑ (Geels 2010)
  17. ↑ (Geels 2005, 2010)
  18. ↑ (Geels 2018, Geels 2005)
  19. 1 2 (Geels 2005, Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014)
  20. 1 2 (Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014)
  21. ↑ (Geels 2010, Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014)
  22. ↑ (Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014, Geels 2018)
  23. ↑ (Geels 2010, 2018, Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014)
  24. ↑ (Kemp, Schot, and Hoogma 1998, Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014)
  25. ↑ (Geels 2018, Geels 2005, Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014)
  26. ↑ (Geels 2010, Geels 2005)
  27. ↑ (Moradi and Vagnoni 2018)
  28. 1 2 (Geels 2012, Moradi and Vagnoni 2018)
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 (Geels 2012)
  30. ↑ (Geels 2012).
  31. ↑ Geels, F.W. and Schot, J.W., 2007, 'Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , Research Policy, 36 (3), pp.399-417
  32. ↑ Geels, F., Monaghan, A., Eames, M. and Steward, F. , 2008. The feasibility of systems thinking in sustainable consumption and production policy: a report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London: DEFRA.
  33. 1 2 Genus , A., and Coles, A-M., 2008. Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy. 37 (9) pp. 1436-1445
  34. ↑ Everett (1962)
  35. 1 2 Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. and van Asselt, M. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3 (1) pp. 15–31.
  36. ↑ Rip, A. and R. Kemp., 1998. Technological change. In S. Rayner and E. Malone (eds.) Human Choices and Climate Change, Vol. 2, 327-399. Battelle, Columbus,Ohio.
  37. ↑ Shove E, Walker G, 2007, "CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable transition management" Environment and Planning A 39(4) 763-770
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.