Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Steering transformative energy efficiency and conservation in British Columbia, Canada Berkhout, Thomas William 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_berkhout_thomas.pdf [ 2.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074027.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074027-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074027-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074027-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074027-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074027-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074027-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074027-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074027.ris

Full Text

STEERING TRANSFORMATIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA  by Thomas William Berkhout  B.A., The University of Waterloo, 1998 M.E.S., The University of Waterloo, 2005  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  August 2013  © Thomas William Berkhout, 2013  Abstract In this thesis I assess the strength of efforts by the Government of British Columbia and BC Hydro to steer transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC) in BC’s built environment between 2005 and 2012. TEEC implies a level of energy savings that requires major changes over the next 10 to 40 years in not only the physical components of the built environment but also in day-today routines and patterns of life. An underlying assumption of the thesis is that in order to learn about, develop and implement the kinds of initiatives needed to achieve TEEC an accelerated system of policy and technology innovation is required. In carrying out my research, my particular focus was on assessing the influence of governance practices on efforts to achieve TEEC and on the outcomes that these practices lead to. To do this, I developed a theory-based evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of existing governance approaches to steer socio-technical transitions. The underlying premise of the theory is that a reflexive governance approach to steering transitions is more likely to lead to a stronger transition context which over time increases the likelihood of a transition being achieved. To this end, the thesis singled-out eight system conditions that I argue are needed to build and maintain the kind of momentum needed to realize long-term transformational change in complex socio-technical systems. These eight conditions were then used as the basis for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Province’s and BC Hydro’s efforts to steer TEEC. When I compared the strength of the transition conditions being created in each case study against the governance approach used, I found a link between the use of reflexive governance practices and stronger transition conditions. Based on this assessment 15 recommendations were advanced for how to improve the governance of TEEC in BC’s built environment. What is more, these findings suggest that any effort to pursue TEEC will need to also be accompanied by a shift to a more reflexive approach for steering transformational change.  ii  Preface Portions of Chapter 5 and 6 pertaining to local government climate activities are based on research carried out by UBC graduate student Lisa Westerhoff and Thomas Berkhout. All elements of the research were shared equally. The results of this study are published as: Berkhout T, Westerhoff L. Forthcoming. Local energy systems: evaluating network effectiveness for transformation in British Columbia, Canada. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy.  Ethics approval The study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia on: August 28, 2007. Certificate Title: BC Hydro’s Strategic DSM Process and Plan. Certificate number: H07-01720. Amendments and renewals include H07-01720-A001 to A009; September 22, 2009. Certificate Title: Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia: Observations. Certificate number: H09-01757. Amendments and renewals include: H0901757-A001 to A005; June 21, 2011. Certificate Title: Networks in Energy Transformation. Certificate number: H11-01510. Amendments and Renewals H11-01510-A001; and November 29, 2012. Certificate Title: Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia, Canada: Interviews. Certificate number: H12-03275.  iii  Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. ii Preface .................................................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables........................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ xiii Dedication........................................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1: Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation .................................................. 1 1.1  Framing the Problem............................................................................................................. 1  1.2  Built Environment Energy Services Regimes ....................................................................... 3  1.3  Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia Canada ............. 4  1.4  Description of the Thesis ...................................................................................................... 7  Chapter 2: The Governance of Socio-Technical Transitions toward Sustainability ................... 10 2.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10  2.2  Overarching Paradigms ....................................................................................................... 10  2.2.1  Procedural Sustainability ................................................................................................ 11  2.2.2  Structuration Theory and Transformational Change ...................................................... 13  2.3  A Multi-Level Perspective of Socio-Technical Transitions................................................ 17  2.3.1  Looking Inside Socio-Technical Transitions .................................................................. 18  2.3.2  Take-off of a Sustainable Energy Regime ...................................................................... 23  2.4  Sustainability Transition Governance ................................................................................. 26  2.4.1  Modernist Governance.................................................................................................... 27  2.4.2  A Reflexive Governance Approach to Sustainability Transitions .................................. 32  2.5 2.5.1 2.6  Analytical Framing of Socio-Technical Transitions toward Sustainability ........................ 38 Getting the Levels Right ................................................................................................. 38 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 41  Chapter 3: Evaluation Framework .................................................................................................. 44 3.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 44  3.2  Evaluation Research............................................................................................................ 44  3.2.1  Formative Evaluation...................................................................................................... 45  3.2.2  Theory-based Evaluation ................................................................................................ 46 iv  3.3  Evaluation Framework ........................................................................................................ 48  3.3.1  System Pressures ............................................................................................................ 51  3.3.2  Resources and Ideas: Shared Vision, Legitimacy and Resource Mobilization............... 52  3.3.2.1  Shared Vision ......................................................................................................... 53  3.3.2.2  Legitimacy ............................................................................................................. 54  3.3.2.3  Resource Mobilization ........................................................................................... 56  3.3.3  Niche Interactions ........................................................................................................... 57  3.3.3.1  Knowledge Creation .............................................................................................. 57  3.3.3.2  Niche Market Formation ........................................................................................ 61  3.3.3.3  Advocacy ............................................................................................................... 64  3.3.4 3.4  Actor-Networks .............................................................................................................. 66 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 70  Chapter 4: Methods of Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................... 72 4.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 72  4.2  Case Studies ........................................................................................................................ 72  4.3  Participatory Evaluation...................................................................................................... 73  4.4  A Qualitative Mixed-Methods Approach ........................................................................... 74  4.4.1  Observer as Participant ................................................................................................... 74  4.4.2  Semi-Structured Interviews ............................................................................................ 75  4.4.3  Historical Documentation ............................................................................................... 76  4.5  Case Study Specifics ........................................................................................................... 77  4.5.1  BC Hydro’s Conservation Target Meetings ................................................................... 77  4.5.2  The Province’s Energy Efficient Built Environment Strategy Meetings........................ 78  4.6  Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 82  Chapter 5: The Pursuit of Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation by the Province of British Columbia ............................................................................................................ 83 5.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 83  5.2  British Columbia’s Energy System for the Built Environment .......................................... 83  5.3  2002-2006 – Dabbling With a Market Transformation ...................................................... 85  5.3.1  The Policy Landscape ..................................................................................................... 85  5.3.2  The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy Regime .............................................. 85  5.3.3  TEEC Niches in the Built Environment ......................................................................... 89  5.3.3.1  Low-Carbon Communities..................................................................................... 89  5.3.3.2  Green Buildings ..................................................................................................... 90  v  5.3.3.3 5.4  Advocates of Regime-Level Institutional Change ................................................. 91  2007-2009 Climate Action Mania....................................................................................... 92  5.4.1  The Policy Landscape ..................................................................................................... 92  5.4.2  The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy Regime .............................................. 94  5.4.3  TEEC Niches in the Built Environment ....................................................................... 100  5.4.3.1  Low-Carbon Communities................................................................................... 100  5.4.3.2  Green Buildings ................................................................................................... 102  5.4.3.3  Advocates of Regime-Level Institutional Change ............................................... 102  5.5  2010-2012 Shifting Priorities ............................................................................................ 104  5.5.1  The Policy Landscape ................................................................................................... 104  5.5.2  The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy Regime ............................................ 106  5.5.3  TEEC Niches in the Built Environment ....................................................................... 111  5.5.3.1  Low-Carbon Communities Niche ........................................................................ 111  5.5.3.2  Green Buildings ................................................................................................... 113  5.5.3.3  Advocates of Regime-Level Institutional Change ............................................... 114  5.6  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 114  Chapter 6: Assessing Provincial Efforts to Steer Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia’s Built Environment .............................................................. 118 6.1  Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 118  6.2  System Pressure(s) ............................................................................................................ 118  6.3  Resources & Ideas............................................................................................................. 121  6.3.1  Shared Vision ............................................................................................................... 121  6.3.2  Legitimacy .................................................................................................................... 125  6.3.3  Resource Mobilization .................................................................................................. 127  6.4  Activities ........................................................................................................................... 131  6.4.1  Creating New Knowledge............................................................................................. 131  6.4.2  Development of a Niche Market................................................................................... 138  6.4.3  Advocacy ...................................................................................................................... 140  6.5  Actor-Networks................................................................................................................. 143  6.6  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 148  Chapter 7: The Pursuit of Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation by BC Hydro ............................................................................................................................................................ 154 7.1  Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 154  7.2  An Overview of BC Hydro’s Electricity System .............................................................. 154  vi  7.3  2005-2006: Ramping up Demand-Side Measures ............................................................ 155  7.3.1  The Policy Landscape ................................................................................................... 155  7.3.2  The Demand-Side Measures Regime ........................................................................... 156  7.3.3  BC Hydro’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Niche ............................................. 158  7.4  2007-2009: The New Climate Agenda ............................................................................. 160  7.4.1  The Policy Landscape ................................................................................................... 160  7.4.2  The Demand-Side Measures Regime ........................................................................... 162  7.4.3  BC Hydro’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Niche ............................................. 164  7.5  2010-2012: Vision Quest .................................................................................................. 170  7.5.1  The Policy Landscape ................................................................................................... 170  7.5.2  The Demand-Side Measures Regime ........................................................................... 172  7.5.3  BC Hydro’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Niche ............................................. 175  7.6  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 178  Chapter 8: An Assessment of the Conditions Supporting Transformational Change in the BC Hydro Case Study ............................................................................................................................. 181 8.1  Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 181  8.2  System Pressure(s) ............................................................................................................ 181  8.3  Resources & Ideas............................................................................................................. 183  8.3.1  Shared Vision ............................................................................................................... 184  8.3.2  Legitimacy .................................................................................................................... 186  8.3.3  Resource Mobilization .................................................................................................. 190  8.4  Activities ........................................................................................................................... 192  8.4.1  Creating New Knowledge............................................................................................. 192  8.4.2  Development of a Niche Market................................................................................... 197  8.4.3  Advocacy ...................................................................................................................... 200  8.5  Actor-Networks................................................................................................................. 206  8.6  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 210  Chapter 9: The Hard-Governance Infrastructure for Steering Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia’s Built Environment ..................................... 214 9.1  Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 214  9.2  Theoretical Concepts of Hard-Governance Infrastructures .............................................. 214  9.3  The Hard-Governance Infrastructures Used to Steer TEEC in British Columbia ............ 215  9.3.1  Province – Modernist Governance ............................................................................... 215  9.3.2  BC Hydro –Reflexive Governance Practices Embedded Within Modernist Structures218  vii  9.4  Comparing the Hard-Governance Infrastructures Used to Steer Energy Efficiency and  Conservation Outcomes ................................................................................................................. 219 9.5  Exploring Why Reflexive Governance Practices Led to Stronger TEEC Outcomes........ 223  9.6  Identifying and Addressing the Structural Limits of BC’s TEEC Hard-Governance  Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 229 9.6.1  Relational-level Institutional Structures ....................................................................... 230  9.6.2  Organizational-level Institutional Structures ................................................................ 231  9.6.3  Cultural-level Institutional Structures........................................................................... 236  9.7  Integration of Propositions ................................................................................................ 237  9.8  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 240  Chapter 10: A Final Reflection on Steering Transformative Change ........................................ 241 10.1  Summary of the Case Study and Key Findings ................................................................ 241  10.2  Implications and Significance ........................................................................................... 252  10.3  Strengths and Limitations of the Research ....................................................................... 255  10.4  Suggestions for Future Research....................................................................................... 257  Bibliography...................................................................................................................................... 260 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 278 Appendix A Membership of BC Hydro’s Electricity Conservation and Efficiency Advisory Committee (2007) .......................................................................................................................... 278 Appendix B Methods and Document Sources Used to Locate Issues Raised or Submitted Directly to Provincial Decision Makers. ...................................................................................................... 279 Appendix C Organizations Advocating for Some Aspect of Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia.................................................................................................. 280 Appendix D Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Local Government Interviews .................. 284 Appendix E Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Organizations Working with Local Governments .................................................................................................................................. 286 Appendix F Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Provincial Government Officials ............... 288  viii  List of Tables Table 2-1 A Multi-level Perspective of Power In Socio-Technical Transitions................................... 22 Table 2-2 Governance Ramifications of Different Transition Contexts .............................................. 30 Table 2-3 List of Strategy Elements of Reflexive Governance ............................................................ 34 Table 3-1 List of Qualitative Indicators for the Hard-Governance Approach Used to Steer SocioTechnical Transitions............................................................................................................ 49 Table 3-2 A List of the Qualitative Indicators for Evaluating the Strength of the Conditions for Supporting Socio-Technical Transitions .............................................................................. 50 Table 3-3 Evaluation Criteria for Conditions Supporting Transformative Change ............................. 51 Table 3-4 Evaluation Indicators for System Pressures ......................................................................... 52 Table 3-5 Evaluation Indicators for Shared Vision .............................................................................. 54 Table 3-6 Evaluation Indicators for Legitimacy................................................................................... 55 Table 3-7 Evaluation Indicators and Ranking Definitions for Resource Mobility ............................... 57 Table 3-8 Evaluation Indicators for Knowledge Creation .................................................................... 61 Table 3-9 Energy Policy Evaluation Summary .................................................................................... 63 Table 3-10 Evaluation Indicators and Ranking Scale for Niche Market Development ....................... 65 Table 3-11 Evaluation Indicators for Advocacy................................................................................... 66 Table 3-12 A Summary of the Typical Characteristics of Different Communities-of-Learning ......... 67 Table 3-13 Evaluation Indicators for Actor Networks ......................................................................... 70 Table 4-1 List of Meetings Observed for BC Hydro Case Study ......................................................... 78 Table 4-2 List of Meetings Observed for Energy Efficient Building Strategy Case Study.................. 79 Table 4-3 List of Local Governments Included in Case Study ........................................................... 80 Table 4-4 List of Local Government Interviewees ............................................................................... 81 Table 5-1 2005 Energy Efficient Buildings Plan’s Efficiency Targets ................................................ 87 Table 5-2 Provincial Policy Measures to Encourage Energy Efficiency and Conservation ................ 88 Table 5-3 Building Energy Labels / Certifications Used in British Columbia ..................................... 91 Table 5-4 Published Recommendations to Advance TEEC in BC (2001-2006).................................. 92 Table 5-5 Energy Efficient Building Strategy's Efficiency Targets ..................................................... 95 Table 5-6 Provincial Policy Measures to Encourage Energy Efficiency and Conservation ................ 97 Table 5-7 Published Recommendations to Advance TEEC in BC (2007-2009)................................ 103 Table 5-8 Provincial Policy Measures to Encourage Energy Efficiency and Conservation .............. 108 Table 5-9 Published Recommendations to Advance TEEC in BC (2010-2012)................................ 115 Table 6-1 Summary of Selection Pressure Indicators ........................................................................ 121 ix  Table 6-2 Regime and Niche Energy Use Visions for the Built Environment ................................... 124 Table 6-3 Summary of Shared Vision Indicators ............................................................................... 125 Table 6-4 Summary of TEEC Legitimacy Indicators ......................................................................... 127 Table 6-5 Summary of Resource Mobilization Indicators ................................................................. 131 Table 6-6 The Built Environment Energy Efficiency and Conservation Issue Agenda for the Government of British Columbia ....................................................................................... 134 Table 6-7 Summary of Indicators for the Creation of New Knowledge ............................................ 138 Table 6-8 Assessment of Policy Measures to Support the Formation of TEEC Niche Markets ........ 139 Table 6-9 Informal Policy Recommendations for Advancing TEEC in BC's Built Environment ..... 141 Table 6-10 Summary of Advocacy Indicators .................................................................................... 143 Table 6-11 Communities-of-Learning for Transformative Change in the Built Environment ........... 144 Table 6-12 Summary of Actor Network Indicators ............................................................................ 148 Table 6-13 The Strength of the Conditions Supporting Transformational Change in 2012............... 150 Table 8-1 Summary of Selection Pressure Indicators ........................................................................ 183 Table 8-2 Summary of Shared Vision Indicators ............................................................................... 186 Table 8-3 Summary of TEEC Legitimacy Indicators ......................................................................... 190 Table 8-4 Summary of Resource Mobilization Indicators ................................................................. 192 Table 8-5 BC Hydro Energy Efficiency and Conservation Issue Agenda ........................................ 193 Table 8-6 Summary of Indicators for the Creation of New Knowledge ............................................ 196 Table 8-7 Summary of Niche Market Development Indicators ......................................................... 197 Table 8-8 DSM Savings as a Percentage of Load Growth ................................................................. 199 Table 8-9 Organizations or Individuals Who Actively Participated in Two or More BC Hydro Processes ............................................................................................................................. 201 Table 8-10 Formal Recommendations Forwarded to BC Hydro by the EC&E Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................................ 203 Table 8-11 Summary of Advocacy Indicators .................................................................................... 205 Table 8-12 Summary of Actor Network Indicators ............................................................................ 210 Table 8-13 The Strength of the Conditions Supporting Transformational Change in 2012............... 213 Table 9-1 Approaches Used by the Province and BC Hydro to Address Sustainability Challenges . 217 Table 9-2 How should TEEC be Steered in BC? ............................................................................... 239  x  List of Figures Figure 2-1 Healey’s Framework of Transformational Change............................................................. 17 Figure 2-2 Analytic Frame of the Conditions that Support Socio-Technical Transitions .................... 25 Figure 2-3 Transition Contexts as a Function of Degree of Coordination to Selection Pressures and the Locus of Adaptive Resources ......................................................................................... 29 Figure 2-4 An Analytic Frame of Socio-technical Transitions ............................................................ 39 Figure 3-1 An Analytic Frame of Socio-technical Transitions ............................................................ 48 Figure 3-2 Analytic Framing of the Conditions that Support Socio-Technical Transitions ................. 71 Figure 5-1 Historical Electricity Pricing in British Columbia .............................................................. 86 Figure 5-2 Historical Natural Gas Pricing in British Columbia ........................................................... 86 Figure 6-1 Analytic Framing of the Conditions that Support Socio-Technical Transitions ............... 119 Figure 6-2 Summary of Data Included in Table 6-6 .......................................................................... 136 Figure 7-1 BC Hydro's Historical Integrated Resource Plans ............................................................ 157 Figure 7-2 BC Hydro's Aspirational 20-Year Bend the Demand Curve Vision................................. 163 Figure 8-1 Analytic Framing of the Conditions that Support Socio-Technical Transitions ............... 181 Figure 8-2 Summary of Data Included in Table 8-1 .......................................................................... 195 Figure 9-1 The Influence of Hard-governance Infrastructures on Energy Efficiency and Conservation Outcomes ............................................................................................................................ 220 Figure 10-1 Analytical Frame of Socio-Technical Transitions .......................................................... 242  xi  List of Abbreviations BC  British Columbia  BCUC  British Columbia Utilities Commission  CPR  Conservation Potential Review  DSM  Demand-side measures  EC&E  Electricity Conservation and Efficiency Advisory Committee  EE  Energy efficiency  EEC  Energy efficiency and conservation  EEBS  Energy Efficient Buildings Strategy  GWh  Gigawatt hours  GWh/yr  Gigawatt hours per year  IEP  Integrated Electricity Plan  IRP  Integrated Resource Plan  LTAP  Long-term Acquisition Plan  MEM  Ministry of Energy and Mines  MWh  Megawatt hours  TEEC  Transformative energy efficiency and conservation  xii  Acknowledgements Where to start? Completing a thesis is a long and sometimes lonely endeavour. However, it is never something which can be accomplished independently. Over the years that this thesis evolved, numerous people participated in it. While some obviously contributed more directly to it than others, every contribution played an important role. First and foremost I want to thank my incredible partner, Claire, for all of the emotional, mental (and yes financial) support that she has given me to do this while also being a superstar in her own career and raising two-young children with me. On the more academic side of this endeavour a key support was my supervisor, John Robinson. When I came into this I had a vague idea of what I wanted to look into – socio-technical transitions. It was John, though, who led me to the fascinating work being undertaken at BC Hydro to pursue its lofty long-term energy savings objectives and the Province’s climate action pursuits. John has amazed me with both his resilience to smile in the face of adversity and stop on a dime for his students even though he is rushing along at break necks speeds. I also want to acknowledge the support and thoughtful recommendations given to me by the rest of my thesis committee: Arnim Wiek, Andrew Pape-Salmon, and James Tansey, three incredibly dynamic and inspiring people in the world of sustainability. At the heart of this thesis are the stories of two entities trying to achieve ambitious levels of energy efficiency and conservation in British Columbia: BC Hydro’s Power Smart Division and the Energy Efficiency Branch of the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. Although the conclusions of this thesis push them to do more, the desire of the people within these organizations to advance TEEC in BC is unwavering. I thank both of them for taking a chance and opening their doors to a critical evaluation of their efforts to date. I hope that the completion of this thesis marks only the beginning of our conversation. I also want to acknowledge the important financial support that BC Hydro provided toward the completion of this thesis which, when twinned with funding from MITACS BC, was an incredible boost in the latter stages of the research. Other important funding agencies I would like to thank are the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that provided me with a Canadian Graduate Scholarship in the early going, as well as the University of British Columbia. Finally, I want to give a great big acknowledgement to my wonderful network of friends and family who supported me in various ways and various times throughout the thesis. I am a very lucky person because there are far too many of you to name here. However, if you are reading this now, I most surely count you among this great fortune.  xiii  Dedication To Claire, my beautiful partner in everything that is wonderful in life.  It is true that the ideal is the ultimate in beauty and joy our imagination can produce. The ideal can never in its entirety be translated into reality. It always eludes our grasps, always recedes into the future. And yet it must never be lost sight of. There may be a temporary compromise with reality, but never at the cost of the ideal. The striving for it must never cease. Everything must be done to bring the ideal nearer. -  Dutch-Canadian Journalist Pierre Van Passen, Day of Our Years, 1939  xiv  Chapter 1: Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation 1.1  Framing the Problem Energy is at the centre of how we live and organize the day-to-day practices of our societies.  The proliferation of cheap fossil fuel and centrally generated electricity over the last century have enabled humanity, particularly in highly industrialized countries to grow economically, demographically, technologically, and spatially more rapidly than any other time in history (1998). However, with these benefits also come costs. By the 1970s, a number of negative side-effects of the modern energy system were beginning to be experienced and critically questioned (such as rapidly rising energy costs, energy security and environmental degradation and risk). Moving in parallel with this growing public awareness about the consequences of the modern energy system, were emerging ideas and practices of energy efficiency and conservation. One of the most developed of these ideas was Amory Lovins’ (1977, p.:25) “soft energy path”. The soft-path “combines a prompt and serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end use needs, and special transitional fossil fuel technologies. In contrast, the conventional “hard energy path” “relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity" (Lovins, 1977:25) . Unlike the hard-path which relies largely on “technical fixes”, the soft path includes both “technical fixes” and “lifestyle” changes (Lovins, 1977:32). In addition to improving energy efficiencies by minimizing energy lost through its conversation from one form to another (e.g., thermal to electricity, electricity to kinetic), it also sought to minimize the aggregate energy throughout required to fulfill energy services needs by matching energy sources to the appropriate scale and the quality of energy required to fulfill those energy services (e.g., space heating, mobility, food preservation). Although Lovins suggestion to move America’s energy system onto a soft energy path was not taken up by the country’s lawmakers, the idea of planning for and intentionally pursuing energy savings from efficiency and conservation measures did gain prominence in the 1970s and early 1980s. By the late 1980s, many jurisdictions in North America were pursuing some form of any energy resource acquisition strategy which involved the “techno-economic fitting (and retrofitting) of more efficient devices/machines into both new and existing buildings designs and productions process” (provided that it was more cost-effective to meet demand in this way than it was to generate new supply) (Blumstein, Goldstone, & Luztenhiser, 2000). The bedrocks of this strategy were utility and/or government demand-side management programs that are closely aligned with formal integrated energy resource plans. Such demand-side management programs operate largely on the  1  logic of providing energy users with incentives to entice them to voluntary make more energy efficient decisions. By the latter part of the 1980s and most of the 1990s, concerns about a number of the energyrelated issues raised in the 1970s subsided. However, in the late 1990s and 2000s they reemerged with one significant addition, climate change. Until this point, most of the concerns associated with the existing energy system did not extend beyond national borders. Climate change, however, moved these concerns to the global scale and raised the potential outcome of maintaining the existing energy path to catastrophic. For the first time, then, there are serious questions around the continued widescale use of fossil-based fuels, the work horses of industrialized society , throughout the world. Taken as a whole, contemporary concerns about the modern energy system are driving unprecedented efforts by governments and utilities to squeeze more out of energy savings than ever before1 - and for good reason. According to the climate change scenarios included in the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, “[t]he scenarios that report quantitative results with drastic CO2 reduction targets of 60–80% in 2050 (compared to today’s emission levels) require increased rates of energy intensity and carbon intensity improvement by 2–3 times their historical levels” (2007: 172). A 60-80% reduction in GHG emissions is important because it is the level of reductions predicted for stabilizing the rise in the global average temperature between 2.0-2.4°C (International Panel on Climate Change, 2007). A rise beyond this range sees rapidly accelerated rates of species extinction, widespread coral morality, vast stretches of coastal flooding, increased water stress for hundreds of millions of people and increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods, and droughts. Achieving the levels of energy savings required to reduce emission by 60-80% by 2050 will not be easy. The problem, though, is not a lack of technology. According to the International Energy Association’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2012, four-fifths of the existing cost-effective energy efficiency potential in buildings and more than half in industry remains untapped (International Energy Agency, 2012). For this reason, the 20-year “Efficient World Scenario” prepared by the IEA differs from the existing development path not according to the technologies that it assumes will be made available but by the policies it assumes are used to advance the best known technologies and practices. So although technological advances are without a doubt important, just as important as developing new technologies is ensuring that existing ones are being fully utilized. Running in parallel to these technological changes, although not given much direct attention by the IEA report,  1  In the EU, for example, members states are pursuing a 20% reduction of primary energy use by 2020 (relative to the five year national average from 2001-2005) as part of the EU’s effort to reduce GHG emissions by 20% from 1990 emissions levels by 2020  2  will be lifestyle choices that affect how energy and energy-service technologies are ultimately used (Lovins, 1977; Shove, 2003). 1.2  Built Environment Energy Services Regimes In this thesis, I am specifically interested in challenges associated with achieving energy  savings in the built environment. The built environment consists of houses, buildings and the communities they form. Globally, buildings account for approximately 33 per cent of all of the energy consumed (International Energy Agency, 2012) and 8% of greenhouse gas emissions (International Panel on Climate Change, 2007). In Canada, they account for approximately 50 per cent of all energy consumed (Natural Resources Canada, 2009) and 11 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions (Environemnt Canada, 2012). Over the next 50 years, Canada’s population is predicted to grow by more than 55 per cent from 33.7 million to 52.6 million (Statistics Canada, 2010). In Metro Vancouver (2013), the most heavily populated area of British Columbia, the rate of population growth is expected to be even greater, almost doubling from 1.2 million to 2.2 million by 2041. For the built environment, this population growth means not only added pressure on the existing building infrastructure but major new building construction as well over the coming decades. As the lifespan of buildings crosses decades, achieving the level of energy savings in the built environment suggested by the IPCC and IEA will mean a concerted effort is needed to improve efficiency and conservation not only for new buildings but throughout the existing building stock as well. One challenge of doing this in the built environment lies in the fact that the resources needed to utilize these technologies and practices are widely distributed among a highly decentralized and independent network of actors. Unlike the supply-side of the existing energy sector, where a small number of energy producers sell their energy to an even smaller number of transmission and distribution firms, the number of actors selling and buying technologies and services that influence how energy services are fulfilled in the built environment is enormous. In many ways, each community and each building within a community represents a unique node where ideas need to come together with the resources needed to build, change or maintain a built form. Once built actors living and working within these forms will then demand energy services2. Taken as a whole, these actors, institutions, and technologies represent what I call the built environment energy services  2  For buildings, these ideas and resources flow from architects, developers, manufacturers, financial institutes, and trades people who contribute to building them, as well as the owners, managers, and service providers who maintain them. For communities, they flow from the local governments who are responsible for allocating and delivering a community’s shared resources and services as well as the collection of consultants, service providers, municipal associations, more senior branches of government and interest groups that advise on and support them in the delivery of these services.  3  regime. To transform this regime to a super-efficient and low-carbon one will require the mobilization of resources toward these ends at each decentralized nodal point. Making things even more complicated is that for the most part each of these points is largely independent of the others. These market characteristics suggests that to achieve high-levels of energy and carbon reduction in the built environment some form of more distributed decision-making will likely be needed in addition to the centralized policy measures suggested in the IEA’s (2012) report. In addition to these market impediments, the economic, behavioural and cultural changes needed to make a successful transition are potentially enormous (Shove, 2003). Because of the degree of changes to well entrenched ways of doing things, a strong resistance to these changes is likely. Given the market, cultural, and political challenges facing a transition to sustainable energy services, the long-term planning and decision-making processes used to steer the transition will be critical to its success. More specifically, I want to know: How should transformative energy efficiency and conservation be steered in the built environment? 1.3  Transformative Energy Efficiency and Conservation in British Columbia Canada In the province of British Columbia (BC) two separate initiatives are accelerating the savings  sought from energy efficiency and conservation measures in the built environment. The first is BC Hydro’s aspirational target, announced in 2007, to meet all of its forecasted 40% increase in demand for electricity over the next 20 years with demand-side measures. This level of savings is consistent with the electricity intensity improvements for the United States that are used in the IEA’s Efficient World Scenario. The second initiative is the Province’s legislated commitment to reduce its GHG emissions by 33% of 2007 levels by 2020 and 80% of 2007 levels by 2050. The 2050 target is in line with the level of greenhouse gas reductions that the IPCC predicts are needed to stabilize a rise in global temperatures to between 2.0-2.4°C. Given the projected importance that carbon and energy intensity improvements will play in achieving such a long-term GHG reduction target, I can say that both of these targets imply radical reductions in the amount of energy that is used to fulfill energyrelated services (such as illumination, heating, and mobility) in BC over the coming years. Putting these targets into practice will require changes not only to individual day-to-day energy use but also to the technologies, and institutions that bound these behaviours. On the demand side, this means I need to build new dwellings with greater energy efficiency and, just as importantly, build neighbourhoods that are designed to reduce energy use and promote ‘livability’. This includes building new buildings more densely (reducing energy needs), and building neighbourhoods that take advantage of integrated energy system delivery, and are designed to promote mixed use (live near where you work) and to promote walking, cycling and transit use, rather than private vehicle use. Where densification occurs, conjunctive development of shops and workplaces, and coordination with 4  alternative means of transportation (like walking, cycling and public transit) all have significant potential to influence energy use, particularly transport-related energy use (see, for example, Girling and Kellett, 2005; Condon, 2008). On the supply-side, neighborhood-scale densification also means it is more viable to operate district energy systems. Looking specifically at BC’s targets, Dusyk et al (2009b, p. 388) hypothesize that achieving the level of energy savings needed to achieve them will require not only transformational changes in the socio-technical systems within which energy services are fulfilled (e.g., buildings, communities, day-to-day practices) but also in the governance approaches used to try to achieve these changes:  This type of transformative action requires shifts from discrete goals and initiatives to more integrative and systemic approaches, and from independently reducing energy use and throughput toward altering the development path and promoting sustainability. To date, there is significant evidence to support the need for transformational changes in socio-technical systems to achieve the kinds of ambitious goals sought in British Columbia. However, there is little evidence-based research to support the argument that achieving these goals is also closely coupled with the governance approach used to try to achieve these reductions. As such, it is the intention of this thesis to provide a preliminary evidence-based answer to the following research question:  Do transformative levels of energy savings and intensity improvements also require more integrative and systemic approaches to energy governance?  By integrative and systemic approaches to energy governance I mean a more networked and emergent approach to how and by whom energy resources are planned, developed and used. To answer my research question, I will take an in depth look at the efforts being taken in British Columbia to achieve the ambitious carbon and energy intensity reduction goals set by the Province and BC Hydro. What I am particularly interested in are the governance approaches being used and the type of outcomes that these approaches are leading to. However, given the existing uncertainty as to whether or not achieving transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC) involves a dual transition of socio-technical and governance systems, for the time being I will limit my definition of TEEC to the socio-technical aspects of this transition (as described above). Looking more closely at British Columbia, the need to approach energy efficiency planning differently in light of the ambitious objectives discussed above was recognized to a certain extent by  5  the adoption of a multi-level energy efficiency and conservation strategic framework by BC Hydro in 2007 and a “market transformation” energy efficiency policy strategy by the BC Ministry of Energy and Mine’s in 2005 and again in 2008. Unlike conventional resource acquisition oriented demand side management (DSM), which primarily tried to motivate individual-level technological or behavioural change (e.g., information and incentives for high efficiency lighting), these new approaches seek to permanently change market conditions and social norms (e.g., phasing out inefficient lighting in the market and society); the aim of these measures is to influence entire ranges of energy use options in order to bias the decisions made by groups of individuals (e.g., developers, manufacturers, business, residential consumers) toward energy conservation and efficiency. Although the level of activity in BC is very encouraging, it is difficult to know how effective these efforts are in terms of expanding the number and type of transformative energy savings measures that are being explored, developed and implemented in the province. Because the efforts to achieve these long-term goals are still in a relatively early phase of development, my focus here on the underlying activities being taken to achieve energy and carbon reductions rather than on measuring the reductions themselves (e.g., energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions). This is important to know because without the capacity to coordinate a major ramp up of market and societal energy savings measures over the next decade, it is unlikely that the ambitious long-term targets of the BC government and BC Hydro will be realized. Given the level of energy savings sought from BC’s built environment, I ask the three guiding research questions:  1. How well is the existing built environment energy services regime working to achieve the transformative energy efficiency and conservation objectives set out by BC Hydro’s long-term DSM Strategy and the Province’s 2020/50 climate change goals?  2. From a governance perspective, what is preventing or at least slowing transformative energy efficiency and conservation in B.C.?  3. How might the energy efficiency and conservation governance regime be organized to increase the capacity of agencies to achieve transformative energy efficiency and conservation in order to increase the likelihood of achieving BC Hydro’s and the Province’s long-term transformative EEC objectives?  6  In the section that follows I show the path that I have followed to help me find evidencebased answers to my research questions. 1.4  Description of the Thesis In Chapter 2 I review literatures of sustainability, structuration, socio-technical change, and  sustainability governance to help me develop a better understanding of the dynamics affecting sociotechnical transformations as well as approaches to try to influence the outcome of these instances of change. Through this review, I come to understand enduring transformative change as both a horizontal exercise of building and expanding innovative arrangements of sustainability ideas and authoritative and allocative resources (i.e., niches), as well as a vertical exercise of prompting change by gaining legitimacy and structural support for these innovative niches and scaling them up over time by increasing their structural pervasiveness. In terms of efforts to steer this process toward sustainability I make a distinction between two approaches to governance – modernist governance and reflexive governance – and develop the hypothesis that the latter is more appropriate for steering transformational change toward sustainability. In Chapter 3, I develop a generic evaluation framework to carry-out a theory-based evaluation for assessing the effectiveness of existing governance approaches to steer transformative change in places where sustainability transitions are trying to take root. The framework uses the conditions that I argue in Chapter 2 are critical for supporting transformative change in sociotechnical systems. Critical conditions identified include system pressures bearing on the regime; the formation of a socio-technical niche; the capacity of this niche to create a shared vision among its membership, build legitimacy, and mobilize resources; the creation of innovative sustainability systems through the creation of new knowledge, the formation of niche-markets, and advocacy; and a strategic capacity to not only scale-up niche innovations beyond the realm of niche markets to that of the regime but to also increase its powers in order to continue to expand its activities. More specific to this thesis, the framework will be used in Chapters 6 and 8 to assess the effectiveness of efforts in British Columbia to steer transformative energy efficiency and conservation between 2006 and 2012. I use a theory-based evaluation approach as opposed to one based on the physical outcomes of efforts to steer TEEC to date because the early phase of change that these efforts are currently in means that their physical impacts have not yet had sufficient time to be experienced. Next, in Chapter 4, I provide my rationale for using a case study method and describe in detail the research methods used to collect data. Using a mixed-method approach (observations, interviews, and document analysis), the data were collected between September 2007 and January 2013 with the qualitative summary of these data presented in Chapters 5 and 7.  7  In Chapter 5 I describe efforts taken by the Province of British Columbia to advance transformative energy efficiency and conservation in the built environment over a 10-year period, beginning in 2002 and ending in 2012. My description of these efforts is divided into three distinct policy phases: 2002-2006 (“dabbling with a market transformation”), 2007-2009 (“climate mania”) and 2010-2012 (“shifting priorities”). In keeping with the thesis’s multi-level perspectives of transformational change and power, each of these phases is in turn divided into three subsections: The Policy Landscape, The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Regime, and TEEC Niches in British Columbia. From this longitudinal and multi-level description, I identify both the sources and responses to transformative change that the Province faced over the past decade. In Chapter 6 I assess the efforts of the Government of British Columbia to advance transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC) in the built environment as described in Chapter 5. My assessment is based on conditions found to support transformational change that were developed in Chapter 3. After assessing the state of each of the framework’s eight conditions in turn, I provide an overall assessment of the system’s current capacity to steer such a change, allowing me to answer the thesis’s first research question (at least as it pertains to the Province): How well is the existing built environment energy services regime working to achieve the transformative energy efficiency and conservation objectives set out by BC Hydro’s long-term DSM Strategy and the Province’s 2020/50 climate change goals? In Chapters 7 and 8, I use the same method as that followed in Chapters 5 and 6 to describe and assess efforts taken by BC Hydro to steer TEEC from 2005-2012. Similar to the Provincial case study, my description of these efforts is divided into three different periods: 2005-2006 (“ramping up demand-side measures”), 2007-2009 (“The New Climate Agenda”), and 2010-2012 (“Vision Quest”). A considerable amount of the description focuses on the activities that took place around an internal TEEC policy-niche created by BC Hydro in 2006. The nuclear of this niche was the stakeholder Energy Efficiency and Conservation Advocacy Committee which met multiple times each year between 2006 and 2012. In Chapter 9 I answer the remaining to research questions. First, from a governance perspective, what is impeding the pursuit of transformative EEC actions in B.C.? To answer this question I will analyze the regime data described in Chapters 5 and 7, to see if and where it explains the assessment results from step three. To do this, I identify the hard-governance infrastructure used by each of the efforts to steer TEEC and then analyze how these infrastructures influenced TEEC outcomes. Based on this analysis I then develop 15 evidence-based proposition to answer the thesis’s third major research question: How might the regime be organized to remove or circumvent these  8  barriers in order to increase the likelihood of achieving BC Hydro’s and the Province’s long-term TEEC objectives? In the thesis’s final chapter, as a way of summarizing the thesis’s findings, I present my answers to the thesis’s major research questions asked in Section 1.3 of this chapter. I then discuss the thesis’s theoretical and applied contributions before concluding with suggestions for future research.  9  Chapter 2: The Governance of Socio-Technical Transitions toward Sustainability 2.1  Introduction This chapter presents the rationale for using a sustainable transition governance approach for  conducting research on the intentional transformation of large-scale socio-technical systems toward sustainability. The idea of transforming socio-technological systems as a path to sustainability is a relatively new one. It emerged from two separate streams of academic questioning in the late 1990s (e.g., Berkhout F., 2002). The first was a growing dissatisfaction with the ability of discrete technological solutions to address persistent sustainability issues. The second was the application of an institutionalist lens to the phenomenon of technological change (René; Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998; Rip & Kemp, 1998). This perspective led researchers to view technological change not as isolated event but as ones that emerges out of webs of co-evolving structures and actors, operating at different levels of influence: micro (discrete technologies), meso (socio-technical systems), and macro (societal). By the beginning of the 2000s, the Dutch government started to look seriously at intentional socio-technical systems innovation as a key strategy to realizing its ambitious long-term sustainability goals, particularly in the field of energy (René Kemp & Loorbach, 2005; René Kemp, Rotmans, & Loorbach, 2007; Kern & Howlett, 2009). Over the past decade a robust transitions research community has emerged, originally in the Netherlands but increasingly in numerous other countries as well (particularly the United Kingdom and Germany) (Sustainability Transitions Research Network, 2013). This body of work is concentrated in two areas of research: understanding socio-technical systems and their patterns of change and the governance and politics of socio-technical change. In addition to these literatures, critical to understanding the dynamics of transitional change is the relationship between agents hoping to achieve change and the governance structures within which these efforts are embedded. With this in mind, the thesis’s conceptual framework is drawn from i) sustainability studies; ii) structuration theory, iii) socio-technical transitions, and iv) sustainable transition governance. 2.2  Overarching Paradigms Before I build my concepts of socio-technical transitions and sustainability governance, I will  first present the two theoretical paradigms that I use to view them with. The first paradigm, procedural sustainability, is intended to help the reader place my perspective of transitions within the broader sustainability literature. The second, structuration theory, is included here as a conceptual tool to help me work through the seemingly self-contradictory idea of simultaneous patterns of social stability and change in which sustainability transitions are deeply set.  10  2.2.1  Procedural Sustainability This dissertation is couched within the idea of sustainability. Probably the most commonly  cited definition for sustainability is from the World Commission on Environment and Development’s (WCED, 1987, p. 43) report, Our Common Future. According to this report, “[s]ustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Although the commission’s report states that no single blueprint for sustainability exists, it does conclude that both economic growth, which adheres to the “broad principles of sustainability”, and the provision of equitable opportunities are essential elements of any plan. The WCED report, commonly known as the Brundtland Report, is certainly not without controversy. Common criticisms of the paper include that it provides too vague a concept of sustainable development; its places too much reliance on continued economic growth and technological efficiencies; it fails to address alternatives to industrial development; and it is a tool intended to reinvigorate centralized technocratic approaches to development (J. Robinson, 2004; Sachs, 1999). Despite the reports apparent shortcomings, it is important to this discussion because of the significant influence it has had on the issue of sustainability since its release. In line with ideas developed within and after the release of Our Common Future, (such as John Elkington’s (1997) three-legged stool concept of sustainability), Robinson and Tinker (1997) suggest that sustainability is based on the mutual attainment of three broad imperatives:   The ecological imperative is to stay within the biophysical carrying capacity of the plant.    The economic imperative is to provide an adequate material standard of living for all, and    The social imperative is to provide a system of governance that propagates the values that people want to live by.  Taken as whole, these imperatives are intended to ensure that anthropological activities do not exceed the biophysical capability of the earth to support a sufficient material standard of living for all humans, nor do they jeopardize the values by which they choose to live. Implicit within this definition of sustainability is the idea that such a sustainable balance between these three imperatives is not only desirable but possible (J. Robinson, 2008). This in turn has led to extensive efforts to identify what the “global” parameters of sustainability are. In a study of the different perspectives of sustainability held by leading sustainability “scientists”, Miller (2013) refers to this view of sustainability as universalist or thin sustainability. Although these universal concepts of sustainability are fine at one level of consideration, in practice, sustainability is ultimately defined and pursued at the local level. As such, Robinson (2008) argues that in addition to these more universal “substantive” definitions of sustainability, there are 11  countless local definitions of it as well which are developed through procedural exercises of learning about and trying to work out what it means to be sustainable. This many perspectives view of sustainability is in keeping with a line of argument that sees sustainability as an “essentially contested concept” (Jacobs, 2006). An essentially contested concept is one where there is a general agreement about its importance and appropriateness in society but in its application must rely on a shared normative understanding of it as it can never be fully realized or objectively defined (Gallie, 1956). Art, justice, and democracy are all examples of essentially contested concepts. As a way of demonstrating the appropriateness of placing sustainability within this order of concepts, Connelly (2007) cleverly mapped out many of the contesting interpretations of “sustainable development” . The point of his exercise was not to write-off discussions about sustainability as pointless but rather to keep conversations about sustainability going which might otherwise shut down out of frustration or disagreement. Working from this premise, Ehrenfeld (2008, p. 2) suggests that the closest we might be able to come to a shared definition of sustainability is that it is “the possibility that human and other life will flourish on the Earth forever”. With this contested perspective of sustainability in mind, Robinson offers a “procedural” definition of sustainability as “the emergent property of a conversation about desired futures that is informed by some understanding of ecological, social and economic consequences of different choices” (J. Robinson, 2004; J. Robinson & Tansey, 2002; J. B. Robinson, 2003, p. 381). Sustainability, then, is something that emerges out of practice. It is a socially constructed idea that is built, maintained, and changed through countless and ongoing interactions between local actors, scientists and other experts, as well as other actors with an interest at stake. However, it is important to also not lose sight of more universal dimensions of sustainability as well. Indeed, in a summary of established basic ideas about sustainability since the release of the Brundtland Report (at least as they pertain to sustainability assessment), Gibson (2006, p. 172) includes the insight that “[t]he notion and pursuit of sustainability are both universal and contextdependent”. As such, bridging the gap between the universal and the local is an ongoing theme of sustainability studies (Miller, 2013; Wiek, Ness, Schweizer-Ries, Brand, & Farioli, 2012). In terms of how this knowledge is bridge, Miller (2013) identified two general approaches of linking knowledge to action: 1) The “knowledge first” approach which emphasizes actions based on the development and general diffusion of scientific knowledge (e.g., Cash et al., 2003) and ; 2) The “process-oriented” approach which actively involves itself in and conducting research on social and technological processes (e.g., Loorbach, 2007; J. B. Robinson, Burch, Talwar, O'Shea, & Walsh, 2011; Rotmans, Kemp, & Van Asselt, 2001). Rather than a one way pipe, the objective of science in this light is to create new knowledge with those people involved in and directly affected by decisions-making  12  Regardless of the approach used, an important word of caution is that although such universal inputs and even participation can help to create more sustainable knowledge about a local issue, key considerations will still boil down to local specific factors (e.g., ecosystem, institutional capacities, and public preferences). Science, in other words, is an important but not the only input into how sustainability will be defined and acted upon. So while research and debates can and should continue about the sustainable balance between social, ecological, and economic imperatives, from a practical perspective, then, sustainability is a normative concept that will emerge from the local. 2.2.2  Structuration Theory and Transformational Change In this section, I develop the theoretical lens of transformational change that I will use to  address the concepts of socio-technical transitions and sustainability governance. To do this, I start with Anthony Giddens’ (1979, 1984) structuration theory which was developed in the field of sociology to explain the relationship that exists between social structures and human agency. The underlying premise of this theory is that although structures influence the actions taken by actors, actors, by exercising their agency, also reinforce, influence and change structures. The term Giddens gives to this back and forth relationship is duality. According to Giddens, in order to understand the process of building, reinforcing and changing structures, (what he calls structuration), one must look to the places where actors interact both with one another and with structures. In structuration theory, a “structure is regarded as the rules and resources recursively implicated in social reproduction” (Giddens, 1984, p. xxvi). By this definition, the application of rules and resources by social agents as they carry out their day-to-day social activities is central to the constant recreation of structures. Rules for their part are conceptualized as ‘normative elements’ which sanction modes of social conduct as well as a deeper set of ‘codes of signification’ which relate to our constitution of meaning. In a review of Giddens’ structuration theory, Sewell (1992), makes the case that the term “rules” is too easily misinterpreted to mean formal rules such as regulations and standard operating procedures (he argues that formal rules are better represented as a resource). Instead he proposes that the concept of schemas – the informal and not always conscious cognitive patterns, metaphors or assumptions that people use to explain complex reality and personal experiences – comes closer to what Giddens’ argues for. Resources, the second major structural category, is similarly broken down by Giddens (1984, p. xxvi) into two types: “authoritative resources, which derive from the co-ordination of the activity of human agents” and “allocative resources, which stem from control of material products or of aspects of the material world”. Structures, then, are created only when schemas and resources mutually reinforce and sustain one another over time. Maintaining structures, then, is done by  13  maintaining the mix of rules and resources that recreate them. By the same logic, structural change is realized when a new mix of rules and resources are created and then recreated over time. Actors are the second main component of structuration theory. Central to the idea of actors is the notion of agency. Agency is “the capability of the individual to ‘make a difference’ to a ‘preexisting’ state of affairs or course of events. An agent ceases to be such if he or she loses the capability to ‘make a difference’, that is, to exercise some sort of power.” But how do actors become agents? According to Sewell (1992: page number) “agents are empowered by structures, both by the knowledge of cultural schemas that enables them to mobilize resources and by the access to resources that enables them to enact schema”. Actors, in other words, become agents when they are able to activate structures to achieve a particular outcome. Resources are activated when an actor uses things such as money, personnel or tactics to achieve a certain outcome. Schema, meanwhile, are activated through the use of argument and persuasion. Arts and Tatenhove (2004) call the effective use of resources and schema, an agent’s organizational and discursive capacity. This capacity implies a kind of horizontal relationship between actors, resources and schema, and their capability to make a difference. In the above paragraph we see how structuration theory links power to agency. Agency implies a kind of horizontal flow of power because the agent’s capacity to act is determined in part by her ability to align and activate resources and schema. Power, however, can also be the capability to unwittingly constrain the actions of others (Callon & Latour, 1981; Lukes, 1974). This speaks to a more hierarchical dimension of power. What Latour and Callon (1981) call ‘black boxes”: the things that are no longer questioned because they are taken-for-granted. In the first explanation of power provided above, power is afforded to agents and in the second is afforded to structures. Giddens attempts to bridge this gap by arguing that although structures bind what we do, they also provide the context in which change is able to take place. From the perspective of structuration theory, then, structures can both constrain and enable agency. Finally, linking actors to structures is what structuration theory refers to as interactions. Interactions are understood as the broad range of contexts where actors, drawing upon rules and resources, interact with one another (Giddens, 1984: 26). It is through these interactions, which are themselves informed by sets of structures, that actors go about the work of building, maintaining, or changing structures. It is through these interactions, in other words, that structures become dynamic.  14  Bringing all of these pieces together, Arts & Tatenhove (2004, p. 347) provide the following definition of power: Power is the organisational and discursive capacity of agencies, either in competition with one another or jointly, to achieve outcomes in social practices, a capacity which is however co-determined by the structural power of those social institutions in which these agencies are embedded. This multi-dimensional perspective of power has long history in the social sciences (e.g., Clegg, 1989; Dyrberg, 1997; Giddens, 1984; Lukes, 1974; Weber, 1964). To try to capture this codeterminant relationship, a number of theorists have argued that it is useful to think about structures as three nested levels of influence with structural determinacy increasing with each successive level (e.g., Arts & Tatenhove, 2004; Clegg, 1989; Dyrberg, 1997; Healey, 2006a; Ostrom, 2005). The first level reflects the episodic interactions that take place between agents who consciously exercise their resource and discursive capacities to attempt to achieve particular outcomes. This represents the space where decisions are made, policies and programs developed, and new ideas explored. Arts and Tatenhove (2004) call this the site of ‘relational power’. The capacity of agents to influence the outcome of these interactions, however, is not shared equally among the actors participating in them. This is because the collectively organized rules-ofthe-game under which these interactions take place and the disproportional distribution of allocative and authoritative resources means that some agents will be positioned more favourably than others in these interactions not because of personal attributes but because of organizational ones. Arts and Tatenhove (2004) call this dispositional power to reflect the way that organizational structures routinize how and what agents interact with each other in different types of settings. This has the effect of structurally reinforcing the relational power dynamics that exist within these episodic interactions. The third level of power reflects the broadly accepted cultural norms and values that shape the nature and conduct of agents. Arts and Tatenhove (2004) call this structural power, more commonly thought of as ‘culture’ (Healey, 2006b; Ostrom, 2005). The three-levels are highly interdependent and interact simultaneously with one another. Through the back and forth interactions of agents agency, power, and structures change over time. However, the rate of change is argued to differ for each level, with relational-level changes taking place relatively rapidly, organization-level changes over a more moderate timeframe, and cultural level changes occurring over very long-term periods of time (i.e., decades) (Arts & Tatenhove, 2004; Ostrom, 2005).  15  A Multi-Level Perspective of Transformational Change Working with Giddens’ structuration theory and the multi-level perspectives of power discussed above, Patsy Healey (2003) developed a multi-level framework to explain transformational change in local urban governance processes. In Healey’s framework, the three structural levels of power are called: specific episodes, which represent the spaces where day-to-day human interactions take place (relational-level power); the ‘mobilisation of bias’ in governance processes (organizational-level power); and culturally embedded assumptions and habits in governance cultures (cultural-level power). She is also careful to make a clear distinction between episodes of interaction, which align with commonly accepted regime governance processes, and what she calls “episodes of innovation”, which do not align easily with commonly accepted governance processes. She also introduces the possibility of dual sets of dispositional powers: those that guide episodes of innovation and those that reinforce more routine episodes of interaction. Next, Healey argues that each of the three levels of her framework consists of agents and “the binding flow of resources” that link agents and structures. Thee three types of resource flows identified by Healey are: the flow of material resources, the flow of authoritative resources and the flow of ideas and frames of reference, what Sewell (1992) calls schemas. When integrated together in a relatively stable pattern over time, these flows of resources form the structures that bind the actions and opportunities realized by different groups of individuals in particular places and times. To be transformational, she argues episodes of innovation must not only provide new ideas and frames of reference but they must also engage and eventually collaborate with actors in arenas that control material and authoritative resources. In such a way, new structures can emerge which may challenge existing regime-based governance processes. Healey (2006b) adds, though, that building structures horizontally is not enough to sustain a transformation. To endure, transformative innovations must eventually scale up vertically to become organizational routines as well as reflect cultural assumptions about appropriate governance agendas and practices (See Figure 2-1). In this light, a transformation is both a horizontal exercise of building, securing, and integrating ideas and frames of reference with authoritative and allocative resources, as well as a vertical exercise of prompting change, building legitimacy and scaling up innovative arrangements of ideas and frameworks and resource flows. It is important to remember, though, that the relationship between levels is two-ways. Actors exercising their agency in episodes of interactions, in other words, can and do influence organizational processes and broader cultural structures.  16  While somewhat complicated, Healey’s framework of transformational change, provides me with a dynamic theoretical framework to follow and identify the different actors, resources, and interactions that collectively make up transformational change efforts. As such, it will be used to guide my look at both the multi-level perspective of socio-technical transitions (Section 2.3) and transition governance (Section 2.4).  Structural Elements  Levels of Power  Material resources  Authoritative Resources  Ideas and Frame of Reference  Cultural Organizational (“Mobilisation of bias”) Relational (“specific episodes”)  Flow of Ideas Resource  (adapted from Healey 2006) Figure 2-1 Healey’s Framework of Transformational Change  2.3  A Multi-Level Perspective of Socio-Technical Transitions In this section of the chapter, I first present the idea of the multi-level perspective (MLP) of  change as an overarching concept of the patterns of transition for socio-technical systems. Following this general overview, I next use the language of structuration theory to give a more detailed understanding of what is taking place within transitions. Finally, armed with a fuller understanding of the nature of socio-technical transitions, I suggest a conceptual framing of the underlying conditions needed to support socio-technical transitions. Looked at in its simplest form, a socio-technical system is an arrangement of technological artifacts, institutions i.e. rules and routines, and actors that together make up societal functions such as transportation, energy, housing, and health care (Frank W. Geels, 2004). In recent years a theory called the multi-level perspective (MLP) has been developed to explain historical patterns of transformational changes in large socio-technical systems (Frank W. Geels, 2004; Frank. W. Geels & Schot, 2007; Rip & Kemp, 1998). The MLP consists of three nested levels: the landscape, the regime, and niche. At the centre of the MLP is the socio-technical regime; it represents the dominant way that a particular societal function is delivered. Large-scale, centrally generated electricity from hydroelectric, thermal and nuclear sources is an example of a dominant energy regime.  17  A level up from the regime is the landscape which represents the broad arrangement of cultural norms, technological infrastructures, and biophysical systems that together shape our collective notions of what a societal function is and how it should be delivered. Continuing with my energy example, landscape variables include large-centralized infrastructures (at least for electricity and natural gas); expectations about energy that it be affordable, reliable, easily accessible, safe, and, increasingly, clean from a greenhouse gas perspective; and biophysical factors that range from the local all the way up to the global. The third level of the MLP, the niche, lies below the regime in the framework. The niche, like the regime, aims to fulfill a particular societal function but it represents an alternative way of delivering it to the existing regime. District energy (decentralized, locally generated and used energy) is one example of an alternative niche that is attempting to fulfill the same societal function as the large-scale and centralized electricity regime but in a significantly different manner. Using the MLP as their backdrop de Haan and Rotmans (2010) introduce three patterns of socio-technical system change to describe and compare how socio-technical transitions take place: empowerment, reconstellation, and adaptation. Empowerment is a bottom-up pattern of change that takes place when a relatively small niche emerges or an existing one gains power and eventually presents itself as a strong alternative to the dominant niche. Reconstellation represents a top-down pattern of change. In this case, a new socio-technical arrangement or an existing one comes to prominence through strong landscape-level influences that exist outside of the regime such as government policy. The final transition pattern developed by de Haan and Rotmans, adaptation, takes place when the existing regime changes itself by either interacting or merging with other regimes or niches and in so doing is better able to fulfill its expected societal function. Although explained separately, De Haan and Rotmans (2010) are careful to point out that in reality these three patterns are intertwined with one another and play out simultaneously. While the MLP provides a compelling overview of the overarching elements and patterns of socio-technical transitions, it provides few details of what takes place within each of these levels as a transition progresses. Without such knowledge it is difficult to know when, where and how one might be able to influence such a transition. 2.3.1  Looking Inside Socio-Technical Transitions As discussed above, Geels (2004: 903) reduces the list of variables within a socio-technical  system to three interrelated dimensions: technologies; human actors, organizations and social groups; and rules and institutions. As no single literature is expansive enough to satisfactorily explain all of the major elements that make up a socio-technical system, I have looked to literature in the fields of technological change, science and technology studies (STS), and new institutional theory (NIT) to  18  examine how each of these dimensions change and interact with one another to create a process of system innovation. Although each of these paradigms speaks more directly to one specific dimension of system innovation than the others (technological change to the technology dimension; STS to the human actors, organizations and social groups dimension; and NIT to the rules and institutions dimension), they all share a perception of change as a dynamic process, filled with tension, competition and uncertainty. In addition, they also agree that system innovation is rare and represents a sharp break from the norm, which is characterized by a multitude of successive incremental changes to dominant system structures over long periods of time. Furthermore, these literatures, like the broader transitions literature, sees system innovation taking place over four major phases: destabilization, take-off, acceleration, and stabilization. Destabilization signifies a period of rising tension for change within the existing sociotechnical system which until this point in time was relatively stable. The change literature shows that pressure for change is usually driven by some kind of shift in the regime’s environment rather than from within e.g., a disruptive scientific or technological finding (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; Freeman & Louçã, 2001), a shift in cultural values with respect to how the regime should function (Callon, 1991) or a shift in the governing political agenda (Oliver, 1992). When this happens the regime is forced to seek a new way of doing things which will realign it again with its environment. If it fails to adapt to its new environment, its risks being replaced by one that can. While pressure from the external environment is the more typical way for a regime to become destabilized, persistent internal constraints that hinder its continued development may also cause regime actors to seek new arrangements. Such constraints are dubbed “reverse salients” by the large technical systems literature (Hughes, 1983). Take-off begins when action is taken to develop alternative socio-technical arrangements that are intended to challenge the now destabilized system. This phase is typified by accelerated innovation and a strong sense of competition between alternatives that are all seeking to be legitimized as a viable solution to addressing the regime’s existing system-level troubles. In the early stages of fermentation there is a high level of diversity both in terms of proposed solutions and actors, a period that Grübler (1998:51) refers to as a “chaotic ‘snake pit’”. As the stage matures the number of competitors begins to diminish as certain solutions are deemed less viable than others. During this phase of change, alternatives compete according to their technological and economic merits (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; David, 1985) as well the ability of actors to build and convince others of a desirable vision around them (Bijker & Law, 1992; Callon & Latour, 1981; C. R. Hinings, Greenwood, Reay, & Suddaby, 2004). Furthermore, alternatives arrangements may come in many different types and sizes. For example, it could be a discrete regime component (i.e.,  19  technology, institution, or actor arrangement), a subsystem of the regime, or even an alternative regime. Transitions, then, should not be thought of as fixed in terms of space or geography (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2010) - what seems stable at one level may be considered unstable when looked at from another level. Regardless of the scale or source of change, competition in the take-off phase centres on legitimizing one set of claims over another. From a technological change perspective, these claims can be objectively determined on the laboratory floor and marketplace. A science and technology studies perspective, meanwhile, argues that the viability of one solution over another is a socially constructed “fact” that is subjectively created through legal (Bowker, 1992), political (Bruhèze, 1992; Law & Callon, 1992), and industrial arenas (Bijker & Law, 1992; Misa, 1992). However, it is important to point out that, whatever, one’s perspective on change, the level of social determinism of socio-technical change is tempered to a certain extent by the technologies (Grübler, 1998; Hughes, 1983, 1994; René Kemp, 1994; Rip & Kemp, 1998) (1983, 1994) and institutions (Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood, & Brown, 1996) that precedes it . Take-Off gives way to acceleration when all but a very small number of alternative sociotechnical arrangements remain to compete for dominance with one eventually emerging as the new standard. As a standard becomes increasingly established structural type changes within the regime become much more evident and are adopted at an accelerated rate as the process of learning, diffusion and embedding of new ways of doing things gains momentum. The stakes at this point are very high as only one solution will eventually be adopted as the new standard. As such, the focus of actors operating in the acceleration phase of system change shifts from developing and legitimizing new ideas and innovations to gaining key political, social and institutional support for what is now a mature alternative solution (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; Bijker, 1992; C. R. Hinings et al., 2004). The fourth and most enduring phase of system innovation is stabilization. Stabilization develops as the consensus around what constitutes the system’s standards strengthens and eventually becomes a taken-for-granted socio-technical arrangement. Innovation still takes place within this phase but it is incremental in nature, enhancing specific components of the existing socio-technical system rather than developing more radical alternatives to it. Unlike the three phases that precede it, where actors play an active role in constructing technological, institutional and organizational structures, this phase is largely driven by durable structures that bound agency (Callon & Latour, 1981; DiMaggio, 1988; Latour, 2005; Nelson & Winter, 1982). Stabilization ceases when the system is destabilized, opening it once more to disruptive economic and performance opportunities and systemic inconsistencies and controversy.  20  When I bring this review of socio-technical transitions back to the multi-level perspective of power developed in Section 2.2.2, we can now see how many of the elements at play in each of the four phases of socio-technical change fit within this multi-level and multi-resource view of structures (See Table 2-1). Most of the sources of increasing regime tension experienced in the predevelopment phase come from co-evolving, culturally-based structural powers that emanate from the landscapelevel such as the relative change in the price of goods or processes (material resource flow), shifts in political policy direction (authoritative resource flow), or changing public sentiments about the appropriate impacts of an activity (ideas resource flow). These landscape-level changes prompt a response by niche-level actors to develop innovative ideas and attempts to align these ideas with the authoritative and allocative resource flows that are needed to bring them to fruition. Countering these episodes of innovation, though, are the regime-based organizational powers that continue to reinforce not only its existing physical and institutional structures but also the regime’s underlying assumptions about how a societal-function should be fulfilled. Grin (2006) calls this tendency for the structures of incumbent regimes to resist non-incremental change “fight back”. To overcome this resistance, niche actors rely on their relational powers to interact strategically not only with one another but also through multiple higher-level arenas in order to gain legitimacy and to try to better align landscape and regime resource flows with those of the niche. From this description above we can see that a central element to socio-technical transitions is power, both the power to change and the power to resist change. In this light, Avelino and Rotmans (2009, p. 562), propose a power-centric definition of transitions: [W]e redefine a transition as a long-term and non-linear process in which deconstructive and constructive forms of power are exercised in such a way that old resources are replaced with new resources and a new distribution of resources is established at a societal level. By looking into the black box of transitions, then, we see that any effort to steer a sociotechnical transition will need to address multiple dimensions of power. If transformational change is indeed what is sought, efforts to steer this change need to ensure that the agency to create the desired change is enabled not only within innovation niches but also by the organizational and cultural structures within which they are embedded. In addition to this more general point of consideration for transitions efforts, there are also a couple of lessons specific to sustainability transitions that I can draw from this look inside the multilevel perspective.  21  Table 2-1 A Multi-level Perspective of Power In Socio-Technical Transitions Socio-Technical Level Landscape  Type of Power Cultural  Authoritative Resources The web of political, legal and social knowledge, practices and institutions that shape how a societal function is fulfilled.  Regime  Organizational  Regime-based positions of authority, expertise, and regulative and normative institutions that are reinforced through recursive dayto-day routines and assumptions.  Niches/Episodes of Innovation  Episodic  Niche actors attempt to create new regulative and/or normative standards that align with innovation through interactions in legal, political and industrial arenas.  Structural Elements Material Resources The web of economic conditions, technologies and infrastructures that shape the direction of material resources used to build and maintain societal functions. Regime-based technologies, infrastructures and finances follow a path-dependent flow.  Niche actors attempt to create economic and qualitative superiority through laboratory and marketplace interactions.  Ideas & Frames of Reference Widely held cognitive beliefs about how different societal functions should be fulfilled.  Regime-based discourses that supports the dominant system vision and values that are empowered by the flow of authoritative and material resources into structures reflecting these visions and values. Niche actors attempt to build legitimacy and consensus around alternative vision through interactions with landscape and regime actors.  To start is the issue of scale. Each of the three literatures that I reviewed distinguished between at least two orders of change in socio-technical systems: first order change that reflects change that takes place within an existing regime (i.e., the arrangement of technologies, actors and institutions that make up a societal function); and, second order change represents a shift to an alternative regime. Until relatively recently, efforts to achieve sustainability focused largely on finding first-order solutions. However, in recent years, more and more emphasis is being placed on the need to realize second-order change (Berkhout F., 2002). If the stakes of sustainability efforts increase, so too will the number of stakeholders who have the potential to be affected. Not surprisingly, then, Smith et al (2005, p. 1497) see the issue of sustainable socio-technical transitions as fundamentally a question of power: “[t]he greater the extent to which pressures for a particular form of change diverge from the norms and rules of the incumbent regime, the more acute becomes these issues of power”. By this they mean the organizational power of the regime that is embedded 22  and reinforced through its authoritative and material resource flows, as well as its underlying ideas and frames of reference. Finally, sustainability transitions need to be considered with a perspective of co-evolution. Based on their 250-year historical perspective of technological change, Freeman and Louçã (2001) stress that each major new wave of innovation eventually came to prominence not simply because of the economic opportunities new technologies presented but because they successfully co-evolved with broader economic and social movements. In other words, the emergence of a new technological innovation is in itself insufficient to lead to socio-technical systems change if it is not also intricately intertwined with appropriate social innovations. Given the broad scope of elements involved in sociotechnical transitions, efforts to define and move toward more sustainable futures need to ensure that a similarly broad scope of change is taken into consideration. In the section that follows, I will look at the specific conditions that led to one sustainability-oriented niche, the renewable energy sector in Northern Europe, to address the challenges facing sustainability transitions. 2.3.2  Take-off of a Sustainable Energy Regime Looking at the four phases of socio-technical transitions described above, we can see how the  early efforts to steer transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC) in British Columbia that were described briefly in Chapter 1 likely fall somewhere between the phases of “destabilization” and “take-off.” As being able to answer how a TEEC transition should be steered is the primary objective of this thesis, I now take a closer look at one growing sustainability niche to see what lessons can be learned about the types of conditions that contributed to its success thus far. The specific niche that I am going to look at is the renewable energy sector in Northern Europe whose emergence was well studied by Jacobsson and colleagues (Jacobsson & Bergek, 2003; Jacobsson & Bergek, 2004; Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000). According to these authors, a coordinated response was a key condition that allowed the renewable energy sector to develop its knowledge and technological know-how as well as to build the technical, social and political legitimacy that was needed to overcome resistance by the incumbent electricity regime which was at times intense. Looking at what they call the “formative stage” of the transformation process (what I have referred to as the “take-off” phase), they found that four conditions in particular led to the industry’s emergence and the eventual strengthening of the resources needed to respond to pressures exerted on it. These four conditions are: institutional changes, market formation, the entry of firms and other organizations, and the formation of technology specific advocacy coalitions. Each of these conditions acts as a positive feedback for the other three which if sustained can eventually propel an emerging regime beyond “take-off”, toward “acceleration”.  23  Institutional changes are needed to eventually align learning, search procedures by users and suppliers, economic incentives, and development priorities with the emerging regime. For example, in Germany institutional changes that gradually aligned renewable energy more closely with the country’s broader energy system were early science and technology policies to induce a diverse range of ‘knowledge creation’ in renewables; financial incentives (most famously the electricity feed-in law (EFL)); and the streamlining of permitting requirements. Although institutional changes were important to the gradual growth of a renewable energy market within Germany, the creation of a niche renewable market – first by standards and later by the EFL – was critical to the regime’s development and proliferation. Without such protective measures it is unlikely that the regime would have been able to grow as rapidly as it did under the looming shadow of the country’s incumbent nuclear and thermal regimes. The formation of a niche renewable market provided space for new learning, increased legitimization, expanding constituency, and improved economic performance. The stability and opportunities created by the first two conditions encourages the entrance of new actors and organizations to an emerging regime. These actors bring with them an expanded set of knowledge and resources which further increases the regime’s learning potential and economic competitiveness (Jacobsson & Bergek, 2004). Particularly important is the formation of ‘prime movers’ within the niche (Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000). Prime movers represent powerful actors or groups of actors who are able to promote the emerging socio-technical arrangement by building awareness about it, strengthening its legitimacy, making investments in it, and diffusing its technologies and practices across the supply network. In addition to these economic benefits, the growing set of actors involved in Germany’s renewable energy regime, along with other organizations such as environmental interests and supportive politicians added to the regime’s overall social legitimization and strengthened its advocacy coalition. Although public support for the development of renewables has been historically strong in Germany, especially after the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, the existence of a strong renewable energy advocacy coalition was critical to pushing forward increasing measures of institutional change and market formation. In their assessment of technological system transformation, Jacobsson and Bergek (2004, p. 821) contend that such “coalitions need to be formed and engaged themselves in wider political debates in order to gain influence over institutions and secure institutional alignment.” By putting both of these explanations of socio-technical transitions into the multi-level perspective of power developed in Section 2.2.2, I can now argue what broad set of horizontal and vertical conditions are needed to support transitions (see Figure 2-2). To start, pressures that are  24  largely created by changes in landscape structures, call the appropriateness of the existing sociotechnical regime into question. This in turn can prompt a search for alternative arrangements by actors within the regime as well as in niches. However, these are not the only source of pressure. In addition to landscape pressures are the downward imposition of regime-level rules onto the niche as well as the upward push of different niche- and regime-level activities (e.g., advocacy, new knowledge, policy and technical innovations).  System Pressure(s) Institutional Change Socio-Tehcnical Regime  Policy Regime  Institutional Change  Niche Actor Network Heterogeneous Membership  Niche Resources & Ideas Mobilization of Resources Legitimacy Shared Vision  Niche Interactions  Innovations  Advocacy R&D Niche Market  Arrows depict the flow of resources and/or pressures  Figure 2-2 Analytic Frame of the Conditions that Support Socio-Technical Transitions  In terms of horizontal niche activities, the creation of new knowledge, the formation of niche markets and advocacy are critical niche-level activities. The carrying out of these activities is done by niche actors who through their access and capacity to coordinate a shared vision, build legitimacy and mobilize resources are able to achieve desired outcomes. Niche actors and resources may come from within and/or outside of the existing regime. The capacity of these actors to coordinate desired outcomes is enhanced by a heterogeneous membership. The niche, however, does not exist in isolation. How these activities are carried out and by whom will be at least partially influenced by the degree and type of support the niche receives from the regime- and landscape-levels. However, to be successful, transition agents must not only demonstrate a capacity to create innovative sustainability  25  structures and advocate for institutional changes, they must ultimately demonstrate a strategic capacity to scale-up niche innovations beyond the realm of niche markets to that of the regime.  2.4  Sustainability Transition Governance Governance is used in many different ways within the academic literature. Rhodes (1996), for  example, identifies six separate uses for the term: the minimal state, corporate governance, the new public management, ‘good governance’, a socio-cybernetic system, and self-organizing networks. Mayntz (2003), meanwhile, traces the genealogy of the term through three stages: a top-down perspective of ‘steering’ in the 1960s and 70s, ‘modes of governance’ (e.g., hierarchical, market & networks) in the 1980s and 90s and a network perspective of steering collective goals as an emerging interest at the turn of the 21st century. My use of governance comes closest to the network perspective of steering as described below by Roseneau (2003, p. 13) as it, in essence, encompasses the other two: [T]he core of governance involves rule systems in which steering mechanisms are employed to frame and implement goals that move communities in the directions they wish to go or that enable them to maintain the institutions and policies they wish to maintain. Governance is not the same as government in that the rule systems of the latter are rooted in formal and legal procedures, while those of the former are also marked by informal rule systems. Healey (1997), argues that governance involves two critical roles. The first is outcome oriented (e.g., the development of policies, programs, social movements,, product and practice development, and technological innovation), what Roseneau calls goal implementation; the second is articulating the purpose of governance and making strategic decisions about the direction to take and key actions to get there, what Roseneau calls goal framing. Supporting both of these roles is the analysis of the issue being addressed. In addition to defining governance by its outcomes, Healey (1997) also differentiates between ‘hard’ governance infrastructures and “soft” governance infrastructures. Hard governance infrastructures are the cultural and organizational level structures that were discussed in Section 2.3. “Soft” governance infrastructures, meanwhile, are the actual episodic spaces and places where decisions are made by actors who interact with one another in a manner that is consistent with hard governance arrangements, rules and resource flows. Roseneau’s (2003) explanation of governance largely reflects a ‘hard infrastructure’ perspective. By also thinking about governance as decisionmaking processes which are embedded within hard institutional and resource structures, Healey argues that it is easier to reveal how higher-order structural powers bind the interactions and agency of actors operating within soft governance processes. 26  By way of example, if I link these ideas of governance back to the understanding of sustainability that I developed in Section 1.2.1, we can see how ideas about the processes that are used to derive and pursue local definitions of sustainability – normative goal setting, knowledge creation through negotiation, emergence, integration and participation - are reflective of a hard governance infrastructure. These hard governance structures, meanwhile, are intended to “bind” actors operating at the local level toward certain kinds of sustainability-oriented interactions. These interactions reflect procedural sustainability’s soft-governance infrastructure. Although this example demonstrates the governance characteristics of procedural sustainability, it tells me little about where it sits within the broader sustainability transition governance literature. To help situate it, in the remainder of this section I take a detailed look at two approaches to sustainability governance: modernist sustainability and reflexive sustainability. 2.4.1  Modernist Governance The modes of governance most commonly associated with advanced industrial societies are  hierarchy and market. Prior to the 1970s, “government” was traditionally viewed as a strong and unified, centralized, bureaucratic hierarchy which, looking out for the welfare of its populace, autonomously planned and delivered universal social policies to the citizenry (Merrien, 1998). Operating parallel and more or less independent of government was the market which, motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of profit maximization, produced and delivered the goods and services to the marketplace that the government did not. Since the 1970s, the range of goods and services provided to society by the market has grown, in many cases blurring the clear demarcation that once existed between state and market responsibilities (Kooiman, 1999; Merrien, 1998; Peters & Pierre, 1998; Stoker, 1998). This shift is closely tied to the neoliberalist ideology that swept through industrial states in the 1980s and 1990s (Dean, 1999). In what Healey (2006a) calls a criteria-driven approach, governments, using a rational-planning approach, still establish the broad framing of policy and program goals but these goals are implemented by private or semi-private market actors whose actions are constrained through a mix of regulatory structures and financial (dis)incentives. From this description we see that rational planning plays a powerful role in setting the policy goals and establishing implementation guidelines for both hierarchical and market governance. Rational planning, according to Voß (2004), assumes both the uniqueness of truth and universality of knowledge. With these two assumptions at play, social problems can be solved by clearly articulating a goal or desired outcome, carefully analyzing both the constraints limiting the realm of possibilities and the alternative actions for obtaining the desired outcome, and finally choosing the right set of instruments or strategies to obtain this outcome. The planner, in this light, is committed to developing empirically-based and rationally-deduced policy choices but is neutral as to the desired ends of these  27  choices. However, to develop the direct cause-and-effect explanations needed to work out social problems and solutions, complexity is simplified by narrowing down both the scope of the problem and the variables that affect it. Values, meanwhile, enter the system via politicians who, through the logic of representative democracy, act in the public interest (Healey, 2006a). Using this understanding of modernist governance, I next show how one highly influential model of sustainability transition governance maintains many of the underlying assumptions of modernist governance and discuss the implications of this approach when it comes to sustainability transitions.  A Modernist Take on Sustainability Transitions Governance Sustainability transitions governance looks explicitly at the challenge and means of steering transformational change toward sustainability. Implicit in the idea of “steering transformational change” as opposed to more incremental change is the assumption that there is a capacity to influence long-term and large-scale change toward a desired or normative outcome. Smith et al (2005:1494) boil the determinants of this capacity down to two “quasi-evolutionary” processes: the “[s]hifting selection pressures bearing on the regime” (i.e., pressures for disruptive change); and the capacity to coordinate the resources needed to respond and adapt to these pressures. As discussed in section 2.3, pressures for transformational regime change, can come from a number of different sources and scales (i.e., landscape, regime or niche). Regardless of the source, Smith et al (A. Smith et al., 2005, p. 1492) argue that in order to spur a transition, selection pressures need to be “articulated towards a particular problem or direction of transformation”. “[W]ithout this articulation of selection pressures, the conditions for systems innovation do not exist.” If selection pressures are coherent and explicit enough, actors operating inside and outside the effected regime will try to adapt to them. According to Smith et al (2005), key determinants of the inherent adaptive capacity to respond to these pressures are: 1) the development and availability of resources to respond and 2) an ability to coordinate or steer a response. Of the five resources that the authors list as necessary for adapting to selection pressures, four represent tactics for creating, developing and scaling-up new ideas, technologies and practices to the marketplace (i.e., new knowledge via research and development, favourable market expectations, positive external economies of scale and niche marketplaces). The fifth resource is largely a catchall for the kinds of material and authoritative resources that are needed to see these tactics through (e.g., capital, competences, input materials and political support). Factors, meanwhile, that are argued to influence the ability of actors to coordinate or steer a response to selection pressures include the distribution of resources among a network’s members, the interdependency of these members, the existence of a shared vision among a network’s members  28  about an appropriate objective for change and measures for pursuing it, and favourable landscapelevel economic and legal conditions. So whereas the availability of resources is more or less a list of interwoven ingredients that are needed for a transition to take place, the ability to coordinate responses speaks to the question of whether sufficient agency and power exists to provide and use these ingredients. When these two sets of factors of a system’s adaptive capacity are placed in a two-by-two matrix (see Figure 2-3), four ideal types of transition contexts can be distinguished: reorientation of trajectories, endogenous renewal, emergent transformation, and purposive transition. By identifying the degree of coordination to selection pressures and the locus of adaptive resources