Providing Sustainable Housing through Sustainability Transitions
5.2 Sustainability Transitions
Although technological innovation and ecological modernization1 remain important for environmental outcomes, wider approaches to innovation are being argued for as a result of shifts in understanding and urgency to addressing issues such as climate change and the need for a transition to a low carbon future [1–4]. The field of sustainability transitions focuses on the trajectory of change towards sustainability and seeks to uncover the origins, patterns, and mechanisms that drive these transitions.
Sustainability transitions theories build on an ecological modernization framing by requiring innovation while also questioning the need for technology by advocating for social considerations, environmental out- comes, and governance as well as generating deep structural change in order to achieve a transition to a low carbon future [5–7]. Sustainability transitions are co-evolutionary and involve a broad range of actors whereby innovations related to sustainability are adopted more broadly [7–10].
In this context, a sustainability transition is a process of structural, non-linear systems change in dominant practices (routines, behaviour, action), structures (institutions, economy, infrastructure), and cultures (shared values, paradigms, worldviews) from one state, stage, subject, or place to another [8, 10]. Such a transition typically takes place over a period of decades, although more recently there has been a focus on
1 Ecological modernization is a technology-based approach to environmental policy and sustain- ability outcomes. It is often associated with efficiency-based initiatives.
trying to manage and accelerate these transitions given the urgency due to climate change and other social drivers [11–13].
The field of sustainability transitions emerged in the 1990s as a response to short-term policy making around the world. Its origins are in science and technology studies, complex systems analysis, and governance, but many more themes have since emerged. The early theory, policy, and practical applications of sustainability transitions emerged from the Netherlands, but other countries have embraced sustainability transitions research and/or policy development including the UK, Austria, Belgium, Finland, USA, Mexico, Spain, and Australia [1, 14, 15].
There are three core beliefs that differentiate the field of sustainability transitions from sustainability science or development:
1. The systemic fight picture
2. Non-linearity and dynamics in phases (s-curve) 3. Transitions as a solution to persistent problems
The systemic fight picture is where one or more alternative systems emerge to replace or transform a dominant system, leading to a better system overall. This concept is presented through the multi-level perspec- tive (MLP), where transitions are conceived as the interference of pro- cesses at three levels: ‘innovation (niche experiments), structure (the regime), and long-term, exogenous trends (the landscape)’ [10, p. 4]. The MLP is a framework to understand socio-technical configurations and the processes by which niches displace existing dominant or mainstream technologies [7, 16]. The MLP is divided into three levels that form a nested hierarchy (see Fig. 5.1). This nested hierarchy demonstrates that regimes are embedded within socio-technical landscapes, and niches within regimes. Landscapes influence change both on niches and regimes;
in return, niches (may) change the regimes and a new regime (may) change the landscape in the longer term. One of the strengths of the MLP is that transitions are viewed as non-linear processes [17].
Niches are generally thought of as protected spaces that are signifi- cantly different alternatives to the existing technological regime, where rules, behaviours, practices, and wider social elements can develop with- out typical market, competition, and innovation pressures [18, 19].
Fig. 5.1 The MLP and interactions between the three nested hierarchical levels [adapted from 7]
Strategic niche management [20–22] focuses on creating protective spaces for niches. This protection provides learning opportunities, creates more robust innovations, and allows for new networks to develop [20, 23]. This can help to address barriers including technological factors (such as a new technology not fitting into existing systems), a lack of sup- port for development within government policy, and market challenges (such as high costs for consumers). To create protected spaces for niches, transitions researchers have identified the importance of shielding, nur- turing, and empowering niches [23, 24].
The multi-phase concept or the s-curve (Fig. 5.2) represents the ideal transition: a transition where the system can adjust itself to changing internal and external dynamics [10]. The s-curve is useful for illustrating historical change, where the speed and acceleration of the transition helps to explain the trajectory of the change. While there are an increasing number of current transitions case studies, most empirical analyses that have informed the development of transitions theory are based upon his- torical case studies, including sailing ship to steam ship [7], coal to gas energy [25], modernization of Dutch agriculture [26], and industrialized
Fig. 5.2 S-curve development across time
to sustainable agriculture in Switzerland [27]. Conceptually, four differ- ent phases of transition have been distinguished [8]:
• Pre-development—There is limited visible change at the systems level;
however, substantial experimentation and development in the niche level occurs to find a challenger/s to the current regime. Pressure for change starts to build on the current regime.
• Take-off—When enough pressure is exerted on the existing regime, the niche challenger can begin to destabilize it and increase its own diffusion.
• Acceleration—At a certain point, the existing regime will be destabi- lized enough for the niche challenger to make significant structural changes (socio-cultural, economic, ecological, and institutional) more rapidly and with less resistance.
• Stabilization—Once the speed of change decreases and deep structural changes have occurred, a new socio-technical regime is achieved.
Persistent problems are complex, uncertain, and hard to manage. The field of sustainability transitions is normative, as it believes in finding solutions to create a more sustainable future. These solutions should come from a place of co-design and learning [10], something that is more explicit in transition management and emerging theories that incorpo- rate politics and power. Transitions management is a theoretical
framework and a practical, collaborative process to support those that want to affect positive change towards a more sustainable future. The transitions management framework assesses how societal actors deal with complex societal issues at different levels but consequently, it can also be used to develop and implement strategies to influence these ‘natural’ gov- ernance processes [28, p. 168]. Transitions management can be applied to larger systems, as well as subsystems and specific projects. By ‘bringing together frontrunners from policy, science, business, and society to develop shared understandings of complex transition challenges; [transi- tions management] develop[s] collective transitions visions and strate- gies; and experimentally implementing strategic social innovations’ [29, p. 14]. Scholars have identified four types of governance activities that are relevant for sustainability transitions [30]:
• Strategic—problem structuring, envisioning, and the establishing a transitions arena
• Tactical—developing coalitions, images, and transition agendas
• Operational—mobilizing actors and executing projects and experiments
• Reflexive—evaluating, monitoring, and learning
Within the field of sustainability transitions, the transformation of a regime is typically the result of ‘a particular power struggle between the current regime, upcoming niches and landscape pressures’ [31, p. 545].
Researchers have been focusing on understanding the role of power in transitions, identifying who has the power (and who does not), and exploring if and how power dynamics can be identified during a transi- tion [32–38]. Given our previous discussions around the housing con- struction industry and the attempts to improve outcomes through governance, power has been an ongoing challenge within the push for sustainable housing.
Despite the work on power within transitions, there has been a delayed but growing focus around ethics and justice in transitions [39–41]. This has emerged from the need to ensure that sustainability transitions are
“just” and do not leave people behind, especially those people who are most vulnerable. Researchers have been exploring how ethics and justice
considerations can not only help identify problems but also help shape and guide solutions and wider transitions processes [13, 40, 42–44]. This includes exploring the transitions dynamics that create, embed, exacer- bate, or reduce issues with ethics implications like poverty, inequality, and access [13]. Ethics and justice in transitions have been applied across different jurisdictions, scales, and industry sectors, including mobility [44], energy [45, 46], and cities [47]. In this book, we will consider ethics and justice within housing transitions which has not yet received much attention.