Showing papers by "Frank W. Geels published in 2015"

Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges

Abstract: 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.

A critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research: The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions

Abstract: This conceptual review article provides a critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research, which is currently framed by two generic positions. First, the ‘reformist’ position, which focuses on firms pursuing green eco-innovations and consumers buying eco-efficient products, represents the political and academic orthodoxy. Second, the ‘revolutionary’ position, which is a radical critique of the mainstream, advocates the abolishment of capitalism, materialism, and consumerism, and promotes values such as frugality, sufficiency, and localism. We find this dichotomous debate problematic, because it is intellectually stifling and politically conservative (in its outcomes). To move beyond this dichotomy, we propose a third position, ‘reconfiguration’, which focuses on transitions in socio-technical systems and daily life practices and accommodates new conceptual frameworks. For each of the three positions, we discuss: (1) the scale and type of change, (2) views on consumption and production in exemplary approaches, (3) underlying theoretical, epistemological and normative orientations, (4) policy implications, and (5) critical appraisal. The conclusion compares the three positions, provides arguments for the fruitfulness of the reconfiguration-position and offers four critical reflections about future Sustainable Consumption and Production research agendas.