Bridging Approaches to Analysing Low-Carbon Transitions

Geels et al (2016) identify three primary analytical approaches toward studying low-carbon transitions – analysis founded upon integration assessment models (“IAMs”), socio-technical transition analysis (“STTA”), and the method of practice-based action research (“PBAR”). IAMs conduct “aggregate, goal-oriented techno-economic analysis”, STTA performs “meso-level assessments of social groups in relation to radical change”, and PBAR employs “an action-orientation to local initiatives” (Geels et al 2016:576).

The 3 approaches are then represented as incompatible for the purposes of integration, because they derive from fundamentally “different philosophies of science” and “different ontologies in the social sciences”(Geels et al 2016:579), emphasize low-carbon transitions at different spatial ranges (Geels et al 2016), and examine transitions of varying timescales (Geels et al 2016).

IAMs tend to rely on and operate within the positivist philosophy of science, assuming the inherent objectivity and therefore quantifiability of reality (Geels et al 2016). STTA is more rooted in post-positivism or critical realism, which understands reality as layered by “surface level ‘events’, mediating mechanism, and generative structures” (Geels et al 2016:578). The PBAR approach emanates from a more constructivist or relativist foundation, which interprets reality as constructed through multiple meanings and narratives (Geels et al 2016).

Spatially, IAMs generally concentrate on global scales while STTA is concerned with change at an intermediate spatial magnitude and PBAR prioritises measures and effects at a local level (Geels et al 2016).

‘Bridging’, or specifically ‘pluralist bridging’ (Geels et al 2016:581), are described by the authors as “sequential and interactive articulation” (Geels et al 2016:576) via “crossovers” (Geels et al 2016:581) in which the 3 approaches are applied in succession and build upon each other progressively.

After the IAMs generate simulations of feasible low-carbon mitigation scenarios with low cost impacts, STTA supplies critique of individual mitigatory measures and information about user behaviours and potential challenges and aids to implementation (Geels et al 2016). PBAR then studies local efforts which adopt other mitigation methods, and the results of those efforts, and the above knowledge is translated into changes in the IAMs and model runs which minimize certain pathways and promote others (Geels et al 2016).

When utilized in research and practice, the ‘pluralist bridging’ framework boosts appreciation and acknowledgment of, first, nascent threats to and opportunities in mitigation strategies; and second, trade-offs or compromises between different mitigation benchmarks (Geels et al 2016). Given that each approach originates from different pedagogical viewpoints on policy, they collectively offer insights into multiple facets of mitigation policy (Geels et al 2016). Finally, by melding goal-oriented, contextual, and investigative techniques, ‘pluralist bridging’ could provide a more comprehensive and diverse understanding of low-carbon transitions.

(430 words)

Reference:

Geels, F.W., F. Berkhout, and D.P. Van Vuuren. (2016). ‘Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions’. Nature climate change 6(6) 2016, pp.576–583.