Späth, P. & Rohracher, H. (2014). "Beyond localism: The spatial scale and scaling in energy transitions". In: Padt, F. et al.: Scale-sensitive governance of the environment. Edited

Padt—Scale-sensitive Governance of the Environment

M

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Dear Author,

During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Query References Query Remarks

1 AUTHOR: Dii 2012 has not been cited in the text. Please indicate where it should be cited; or delete from the Reference List.

2 AUTHOR: Rip A, Kemp R 1998 has not been cited in the text. Please indicate where it should be cited; or delete from the Reference List.


M

7

Beyond localism: The spatial scale and scaling in energy transitions

Philipp Späth and Harald Rohracher

7.1 Introduction

Scholars of environmental governance are studying ways in which societies deal with ecological constraints, most prominently the great challenges of climate change, losses in biodiversity, and the over-consumption of natural resources. With regard to policy and action, much of the current thinking revolves around the means by which to bring about change in crucial systems of production and consumption like energy, agriculture and transportation. The study of sustainability transitions, consequently, has also become a prominent analytical perspective (Markard et al. 2012). In the current debates about the transformation of these socio-technical systems (energy, agriculture, transport, etc.) experts, politicians, and other commentators often and explicitly relate to spatial characteristics (size of plants and enter-prises, spatial scale of infrastructures, decentralization of management capacities, etc.).

Recent struggles in Western countries about energy transitions are particularly tightly linked to spatial qualities. Some actors (including the German government and large parts of the energy industry) argue that a shift to renewable sources of electricity would be almost all it takes to make the German energy system sustainable. Others (including some parts of the German Energiewende movement) insist that it is of primary importance that the share of distributed generation capacity be increased (i.e., electricity from small-scale pho-tovoltaic, small cogeneration and on-shore wind rather than large scale off-shore wind and solar power from the deserts. Only such decentralization can, in their view (besides reduc-ing the need for transmission lines), limit the power of a few oligopolies within the energy markets and their influence on the regulation of these markets. The question of how small-scale and close to demand (i.e., how ‘distributed’) future generation capacities should be, is at the core of the struggle about energy transitions, not only in Germany but in many industrialized countries.

Innovation studies analyse the path dependencies of socio-technical systems, such as energy systems, in which material aspects (such as infrastructure investments) and social institutions (such as attitudes, tariffs, and organizational routines) co-evolve and, over time, increasingly stabilize each other. The observation of systemic changes in these systems in

Scale-sensitive Governance of the Environment, First Edition. Edited by Frans Padt, Paul Opdam, Nico Polman, and Catrien Termeer.© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


M

BEYOND LOCALISM: THE SPATIAL SCALE AND SCALING IN ENERGY TRANSITIONS 107

spite of this stabilization subsequently led to research on socio-technical transitions. Energy systems have been the primary object of study in this burgeoning research field (Markard et al. 2012, p. 961). The interplay of three levels of structuration (niches, regimes and land-scape) with different temporal dynamics is at the centre of the multi-level perspective (MLP), a major conceptual framework developed in this field. While in recent years this framework has rapidly gained recognition among scholars and policymakers alike, some scholars have also begun to complain that such approaches are incapable of including spatial dynamics into the analysis (Smith et al. 2010; Coenen et al. 2012; Coenen and Truffer 2012). Besides a series of analyses of these conceptual shortcomings (Truffer and Coenen 2012), there have been some first attempts to overcome them within largely empiri-cally informed work (Bulkeley et al. 2011; Späth and Rohracher 2011; Späth and Rohracher 2012). Bridge et al. (2013), for example, explicitly addressed the importance of the spatial scale in the UK energy (transition) policy. The first, more comprehensive draft of a frame-work for a multi-scalar MLP was finally published in 2012 (Raven et al. 2012).

One strand of empirical research and conceptual rethinking of the MLP centres on the role of cities and regions as places mediating such transitions and the importance of the local level. Studying niche-regime-landscape dynamics in a scale-sensitive way (as opposed to just looking at processes of structuration and events over time) helped to unearth the presumably important spatial unevenness of such dynamics (Raven et al. 2012) and the observation that cities and certain regions can function as crucial arenas of social dynamics for the development of socio-technical change (Rohracher and Späth forthcoming). The distributed nature and specific socio-technical dynamics of large-scale transition processes toward greater sustainability make cities and regions important sites of infrastructure transformation as they often form a crucial nexus between different levels of governance and arenas of socio-political discourse.

We believe our empirical work of the last few years can contribute to the current debate on the geography of sustainability transitions. This chapter provides an overview of our findings concerning two questions: 1) To what extent can a socio-technical system (e.g., the energy system in small and medium cities or regions) be detached from the constrain-ing factors of the general energy regime? and 2) Can such local deviations have an effect on the global regime as a whole?

In this chapter we first review the literature on socio-technical systems and sustainability transitions with a focus on how well it can accommodate an analysis sensitive to spatial scale and social activities of scaling (section 7.2). We then give some examples of the importance of such issues in energy transitions based on our work on energy regions and so-called eco-cities (section 7.3). On the basis of these examples, we then explore some generalizations in regard to the analysis of sustainability transitions and, particularly, the role of cities and small regions, and reflect on the implications of such a perspective in regard to the governance of these processes (section 7.4). Finally, we summarize our main conclusions and give an outlook regarding further research (section 7.5).

7.2 Creating space for the spatial scale and scaling in conceptualizations of sustainability transitions

Before we review the transitions literature for its sensitivity to spatial scale, we should clarify in what sense we think spatial dimensions should be considered. First, we follow


M

108 PHILIPP SPÄTH AND HARALD ROHRACHER

Gibson et al. (2000, p. 219) and ‘use the term scale to refer to the spatial, temporal, quan-titative, or analytical dimensions used by scientists to measure and study objects and pro-cesses’. We emphasize that scales are social constructs. Also on the spatial scale, particular levels are often discursively produced (e.g., the regional level), they often are not precisely defined, let alone systematically nested or strictly hierarchical, and they can be re-defined at certain times. Therefore, we subscribe to a ‘relative concept of space’ for the study of socio-technical transitions, which means that we regard space as ‘a positional quality of the world of material objects or events’ (Gibson et al. 2000, p. 229) in contrast to an absolute concept of space as a (always numerically measurable) container of all material objects. Scaling is, then, a social activity of (re-) positioning issues on particular (mouldable) levels of the (spatial) scale.

Since this book foregrounds issues of environmental governance, the concept of ‘politics of scale’ is of particular relevance. It emerged from the scale debate at the nexus of radical geography and political economy and addresses the impacts that processes of rescaling can have on the distribution of power (Moss and Newig 2010, p. 4). It also tries ‘to overcome the limitations of more static concepts, like multi-level governance’ (Wissen 2009). But how can these conceptual developments be taken up in the study of socio-technical transitions?

The multi-level perspective (MLP) is a framework commonly used today for analysing sustainability transitions (for example, see Geels 2004). It distinguishes niches, regimes and landscape as three levels of structuration, based on an evolutionary concept of variation at the niche level (i.e., the breeding of new technologies within confined technological niches or market segments) and selection at the level of the dominant socio-technical regimes, which are embedded in the broader context of the socio-technical landscape (Geels 2005; Garud and Gehman 2012).

These three levels on a scale of increasing structuration were often regarded as being linked to particular levels on the time scale (ranging from short-term processes in niches to the longue duree of changes at the landscape level). This set of quasi multi-dimensional levels has been found to provide a useful heuristic to help sort out the usually messy accounts of complex system dynamics (Farla et al. 2012). However, attempts to relate structuration levels with spatial scale (e.g., by labelling the niche level as micro-level, as some early accounts of the MLP did, or by focusing solely on local aspects when analysing niche developments) were not very convincing, either conceptually or in the light of empirical cases (Coenen et al. 2012). Consequently, some scholars criticized the MLP approach for the absence of any meaningful spatial dimension in its conceptualization of socio-technical change (Raven et al. 2012) and, thus, its blindness for spatial aspects, such as proximity in actor networks or any kind of sub-national regime variation (such as in cities or regions).

As mentioned earlier, niches are conceptualized as spaces that are protected from certain economic selection pressures (Smith and Raven 2012). However, the roles that physical and social space and socially constructed places, such as cities and regions, can play in such processes has not been sufficiently emphasized in the transition literature (Hodson and Marvin 2009). This contrasts sharply with the prominent role that many practitioners attribute to cities in fighting climate change, and also with the attention that is paid to regions in innovation studies (Truffer 2008; STRN 2010; Truffer and Coenen 2012; Coenen and Truffer 2012; Coenen et al. 2012). From these perspectives space seems to be a very important dimension of socio-technical change and, hence, deserves primary attention in any attempt of governing such transformation processes.


M


Such spatial aspects were first addressed in a limited number of studies dealing with climate policy and the governance of energy infrastructures in cities (Guy and Marvin 1996; Graham and Marvin 2001; Bulkeley and Kern 2006; Coutard and Guy 2007; Mons-tadt 2007; Hodson and Marvin 2009, Späth and Rohracher 2011; Rohracher and Späth forthcoming) and regions (Smith 2007a; Späth and Rohracher 2010; Späth and Rohracher 2012). As early as 2006, Geels and Deuten explored the interplay of local experiments and (rather) global epistemic communities as local and global aspects of niches in order to extend the approach of strategic niche management. Building on this work, in 2010 Coenen et al. discussed possible conceptualizations of experiments in particular localities, and the role of various forms of proximity.

In Germany and Austria, as in most countries, formal competencies for energy policies reside at the national level. Since the 1990s, however, political practice and social research has increasingly recognized European cities and regions as loci for the development and exemplary implementation of alternative regime configurations (Monstadt 2007; Hodson and Marvin 2009). Some larger municipalities and regional utilities, for example, have played an important role in the discourse on energy transitions by providing showcases for a change towards distributed generation and the use of (local) renewable energy resources. On one hand, this role can be understood as a result of regionalization. Local actors, on the other hand, often explicitly frame their activities as part of a global fight for a more sustainable energy future and try to contribute by setting an example. In line with this motivation, municipal and regional actors also created various networks (e.g. the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, the Climate Alliance of European Cities and the Aarhus Convention) and strategically join forces and exchange experiences in a supra-national space (Bulkeley 2005).

Approaching the field with an explicitly geographical perspective, Bulkeley (2005) made a significant contribution to ‘reconfiguring environmental governance’ with a call for a pluralistic and combined analysis of both a) politics of scale (relating to more or less hier-archic social constructs of levels) and b) politics of networks (which are rather horizontal or non-hierarchical in character). The author writes:

governing the environment involves both political processes of scaling and rescaling the objects and agents of governance, as well as attempts to create new, networked, arenas of governance [. . . .] recognition of new ‘spatial grammars’ is necessary for understanding emerging hybrid forms of envi-ronmental governance and their political and ecological implications (p. 875).

In a complementary, more empirical paper, Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) explored the capaci-ties of cities and local governments to address the challenges of sustainability. Based on empirical observations concerning ‘discursive and material struggles, which take place in creating sustainable cities’, particularly in the fields of development and transport planning in two British towns, they argue that ‘the “urban” governance of climate protection involves relations between levels of the state and new network spheres of authority which challenge traditional distinctions between local, national, and global environmental politics’ (Bulke-ley and Betsill 2005, p. 42). The traditional approach to studying multi-level governance systems seems not to be able to properly grasp at least some of the discursive and institu-tional developments involved in current attempts to foster sustainability transitions.


M


It is frequently debated in transition studies whether the concept of a socio-technical regime can be fruitfully applied not only at a national scale, as is the normal practice, but also to socio-technical rule sets at a city level. Some scholars regard the concepts of the MLP to be scalable and make regimes of very different spatial reach the object of their transition studies and strategies (Loorbach 2010). We, in contrast, see a danger in such a downsizing of the unit of analysis as the framework assumes certain qualities of socio-technical systems to be anchored at the regime level (important institutions, professional cultures, etc.), which cannot directly be influenced and changed at the city level (Geels and Schot 2007, pp. 400–405). But at which scale are socio-technical systems really congealing and stabilizing? Most transition studies assume that regimes are most likely found or best studied at a national level (Markard et al. 2012; Raven et al. 2012). This assumption, however, might be misleading, despite the important role that regulation and national boundaries (e.g., of identity and discourse) might play. An understanding of the MLP, which assumes rather clear-cut regime boundaries – with niche developments challenging the regime from below and landscape pressures challenging the regime from above – sim-plifies the complex dynamics too much. In fact, regime actors are also co-shaping landscape developments and they are, at the same time, niche actors experimenting with alternative technical configurations. Truly radical innovations like those fundamentally transforming energy systems, thus, cannot be limited to tightly delineated regimes, but would have to go along with much more pervasive changes (e.g., of our political and economic systems) (Späth et al. 2012).

In the remainder of the chapter we aim to exemplify what a scale-sensitive analysis of sustainability transition initiatives could look like by reconsidering some previously ana-lysed examples from an energy region in Austria and the Green City of Freiburg.

7.3 The governance of sustainability transitions and its spatial dimensions: Two case studies reconsidered

Hopes that effective environmental governance will help societies cope with the grand challenges of our times, including climate change and the loss of biodiversity as well as the loss of soil and natural resources, have not completely diminished in recent years, but have shifted markedly from the governance level of international regimes to sub-national, local levels. Further, the proposition that the problems could be solved just by governments developing better policies and executing them in a hierarchical mode is continuously losing support. More varied modes of governance are being searched for, and from state actors and legislation the perspective is broadened to the study of whole systems of provision and consumption, including economical and technical as well as cultural aspects such as lifestyles.

In this section we re-examine two case studies of attempts to redesign energy infrastruc-tures. Both cases follow an explicitly local agenda, aiming to change the infrastructure and institutional arrangements a) in the area of Freiburg, a German city of 200,000 inhabitants, and b) in the rural district of Murau in Austria (1384 km2, 30,000 inhabitants). Both initia-tives are closely linked to the broader movement desiring an energy transition (Energie-wende) with the objective of changing the entire energy economy at the level of, at least, the respective nation-states, if not the globe.

A major aim of these initiatives is to demonstrate the feasibility of sustainable socio-technical configurations in model regions (Coenen et al. 2010). Particularly in Germany


M


and Austria, programmes for competitive funding of model energy regions have been implemented under the auspices of federal ministries. Many of the model regions funded under these schemes aim at some sort of energy self-reliance, such as 100% net-supply from local renewable sources (Radzi 2009). In Germany, for example, hundreds of villages are aiming to become bio-energy villages (Moser et al. 2009). In cities, the governance capacities for supporting socio-technical transitions are typically higher than in regions that often have very limited competencies for planning. However, ‘critical questions con-cerning the extent to which cities and local governments can address the challenges of sustainability remain unanswered’. This conclusion of Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) still holds today.

7.3.1 (Case 1) The ‘Energy Vision’ of Murau: A showcase for ‘energy autarky’ of regions?

Murau is a rural district in Upper Styria, Austria. It is located in a rather peripheral alpine valley, covered largely by forests and sparsely populated by roughly 30,000 inhabitants. Since the 1970s the district’s population has continuously decreased (by around 7% between 2001 and 2011 alone). The area has an enormous stock of wooden biomass from the largely privately owned forests.

7.3.1.1 A local network with region-related objectives, inspired by a movement of (inter-) national currencyIn 2003, the head of the regional Energy Agency of Upper Styria together with a profes-sional facilitator of participatory processes started an initiative to develop and implement the ‘Energy Vision’ of Murau. The process was started by bringing together a small circle of energy activists living in the district. Relating to the concept of ‘Energy Regions’, which has guided similar regional initiatives in Austria since the early 1990s, they developed the idea of creating a broader process of participation in order to kick off, facilitate and coor-dinate the implementation of various projects for renewable energy and energy efficiency in the district. A central aspect of their idea was to embed the renewed interest in biomass heating into a more comprehensive approach toward energy system change and regional development and create synergies between and legitimacy for a variety of agendas and projects. These efforts were motivated by hopes to improve the environmental and eco-nomic impacts of the energy turnover locally. Responding to local particularities, such as the large biomass resources and the professional backgrounds of the initiators (some running plumbing firms, one being a representative of small-scale forest owners, etc.), they developed specific strategies to change the local energy system. However, this initiative would not have emerged if there had not been a broad movement for a transition toward sustainable energy systems in Austria and other European countries (Späth and Rohracher 2010; Späth 2012; Späth and Rohracher 2012).

7.3.1.2 Developing a guiding vision for the districtBeginning in 2004, the initiators invited organizations, companies and citizens of the region to a series of workshops. In the beginning, 30 people, mostly representing local energy-related organizations, participated in the process. They discussed their individual visions regarding the energy future of the district and explored areas of consensus. Sto-rylines such as ‘there is enough biomass in our woods for our full heat and electricity supply’ and ‘by using fossil energy we transfer our money to the sheiks’ (Späth 2012) played


M


an important role. The consensual ideas and priorities were cast into a sketchy vision of the region’s socio-technical future – a vision of energy autonomy for the district, including some objectives to be realized before the year 2015.

• The district of Murau is energy-autonomous in regard to heat and electric-ity (in other words, in terms of primary energy flows the net annual balance of renewable energy sources is positive).

• Prospering regional economic circuits of energy production and consump-tion have been established and an economic surplus is created by a net export of energy carriers to other regions.

• A high level of public awareness has been achieved concerning the need for an energetic circular flow economy (energetische Kreislaufwirtschaft) – especially among local students.

Measures to achieve these objectives were identified and prioritized. For the top measures, permanent working groups were established to create specific strategies, for example focus-ing on wood-fired district heating systems in one case and on solar heating systems for private homes in another case.

7.3.1.3 Exploiting material, social and discursive particularities of the districtThe agenda of the initiative relates to two different discourses: a mainly environmentalist discourse that primarily promotes de-carbonization of the energy system and a discourse on economic development, which primarily promotes local economic development and the regionalization of income and employment. Merging these two discourses, contextual-izing them locally and creating an energy political agenda for local actors allowed the initiative to be attractive to a much larger part of the population than had been possible with a less comprehensive agenda. Emphasis was thus put on the assessment of regional potentials for value creation by bringing regional, renewable energy sources into use. This was not far-fetched, as biomass traditionally played and is still playing an important role in many alpine regions of Austria.

The district, with its small and dispersed population and little industry, furthermore does not allow for a profitable operation of a gas supply network and is therefore ‘off the radar’ for the main incumbent actors of fossil fuel provision. These specific conditions (location off the gas grid, huge biomass potential) and opportunities for mobilization (convergence of environmentalist and economic agendas, forest owning farmers, tradition of biomass use) have been intentionally exploited. Local, natural and economic specificities, hence, coincided with a discursive opportunity and its strategic use in forming something like a ‘discursive niche’. This could explain why the initiative and its new paradigm faced so little resistance and soon dominated the local discourse.

In terms of social relations, the district of Murau is home to a relatively close-knit com-munity, with people seeing each other frequently, due to a high importance of community activities, associations and family ties. However, the district accommodates enough enter-prises, associations and ambitious politicians to form a sufficiently heterogeneous actor network that is in command of all of the resources required to make a significant impact on local investments (development funds, media relations, etc.). The small, remote popula-tion – which seems to be comparatively well-equipped in regard to social capital and trust-ful relationships, as many community activities indicate – is believed to also have fostered


M


the trust in a few energy experts who are well known for their long-standing activities in the region. These experts, then, easily dominated the debates (see also Walker et al. 2010 for the role of trust in community energy).

7.3.1.4 Mutually supportive institutionalization at many levels of regional governanceSince their creation, the Energy Vision objectives have been given the formal status of binding priorities for economic development at various regional levels. These institution-alizations benefited from the fact that the head of the regional energy agency, a key actor in the Energy Vision process, was also an officially appointed manager of the regional EU-LEADER programme and involved in development planning on the broader (NUTS-3) regional level of ‘Upper Styria West’ (roughly 105,000 people). Due to these overlapping competencies and the high reputation of a single expert, the priorities of the Energy Vision have, in one form or another, been recognized as a guideline at five regional levels: 1) single municipalities, 2) small planning associations of four to ten municipalities (regionext), 3) district level/LEADER-region, 4) EU NUTS-3 region, and 5) province (Styria). The insti-tutionalization of similar priorities at the various levels probably helped to reinforce the decisions at the other levels and made setting ambitious energy objectives a social norm across the larger region. The unusually high number of regional governance levels that have been developed in Styria and the various programmes of regional development funding, most importantly based on EU structural funds, together build an important part of the locally specific opportunity structure that the initiative benefited from.

7.3.1.5 The intermediation between local node and global networkWe have already stressed the key role that the director of the regional energy agency played. He was involved not only in most of the debates concerning the economic development of the region, but also in the discussions with experts and funding agencies about the design and management principles of funds for regional development at the national and Euro-pean level. Hence, he formed an important link between the local network and networks in command of the required resources at the national and international levels, including the national and European communities of experts on regional development, the European network of energy agencies and various EU research projects.

The activities in the Murau district were perceived as crucial in the creation and promo-tion of an example of national reach and beyond. Presumably because such examples can be of great argumentative value for proponents of change (e.g., at a national level), these proponents (e.g., officers at the ministries of technology and the environment) support such local initiatives by setting up various competitions (Energy Globe and Model Energy Regions etc.) and by providing some limited project funding. Local and national media amplified the publicity generated by award ceremonies both in regard to local and national publics as well as among international experts of regional development and community energy.

7.3.2 (Case 2): Freiburg ‘Green City’: More than PR to compete with other places?

The city of Freiburg with some 220,000 inhabitants is located in the south-west corner of Germany. It is surrounded by the slopes of the Black Forest and opens to the plains of the Upper Rhine Valley. Since the early 1990s, Freiburg has been well known for its remarkable


M


environmental policies. In 1992, Freiburg was chosen as Germany’s Environmental Capital for its pioneering environmental achievements. Many awards and titles followed, including Federal Capital of Climate Protection (2010) and Most Sustainable Large City of Germany (2012).

The foundation of its role as a forerunner in energy policies was laid by Freiburg’s vision to reduce its dependence on what was increasingly perceived to be dangerous and unsus-tainable energy sources: coal and nuclear energy. As early as 1986, the city council of Freiburg decided unanimously on an energy supply concept which included 1) a priority for energy saving, 2) the objective to increase the share of renewable energy (solar, water, landfill gas) and 3) a commitment to reduce the share of nuclear energy to zero.

Asked about crucial sources and drivers of this role of a frontrunner, respondents in Freiburg unanimously refer to one aspect of regional history: plans to build a nuclear power plant nearby mobilized strong resistance in the mid-1970s and had to be finally dropped in the early 1980s. Since then, a broad range of environmentally engaged civil society initia-tives have been able to build up and maintain momentum for a local energy transition.

7.3.2.1 A relatively high share of renewable energy and efficiency following ambitious local policiesThe city grew by more than 10% over the last two decades, which has made it difficult to achieve a large decrease in the absolute consumption of energy. Similarly, strong efforts by private actors and the municipality to increase the share of renewable energy sources have led to only a very partial achievement of this objective. A big success, at least numerically, was the intended shift towards the efficient co-generation of heat and power (CHP). Today, about 50% of the city’s electricity is generated in highly efficient CHP plants (Lange et al. 2010). Several connected district heating systems (with heat generated partly from landfill gas and wood-chips) have been systematically expanded to newly developed districts and are now serving about 12% of the city’s population.

Another policy, widely acclaimed to be best practice, aims to improve the energy effi-ciency of new buildings. For any plot sold by the municipality, and for any development site covered by a municipal development scheme, the city ensures, by contractual arrange-ment, that specific building standards are met that exceed national requirements by up to 30%. The Freiburg Low Energy Building Standard, which the city council decided upon in 1992, and which was tightened in 2005, was at first significantly stricter than national legislation; however, within four to five years the national standards had nearly caught up to those being used in Freiburg.

In regard to the share of renewable electricity generation, the city is facing limited local potential. By now, six wind turbines with a capacity of 1.8 MW each have been installed within the city boundaries. These investments were largely based upon the private equity of residents. The capacity of photovoltaic generators now exceeds 25 MWp, which is remarkably high in comparison to other German cities of this size.

The number of solar hot water collectors is also relatively high, which can be explained by specific subsidies paid out by the municipal utilities since the 1990s, which were financed via a specific levy on electricity consumption.

7.3.2.2 A local and dynamic network of engaged experts and citizensFreiburg is home to a wide range of research organizations, companies, lobby organizations and individuals advocating renewable energies, mainly solar, and environmental technol-ogy and policies. Many employees of these organizations and students of the Fraunhofer


M


Institute on Solar Energy Systems have developed into engaged energy experts and apply their knowledge in the debates about the development of the local energy system. These individuals have rarely been formally organized, although for a while there was an Agenda 21 committee on local energy issues as well as other working groups. Since the 1990s, members of a range of organizations have been called together from time to time to find a joint position under the label ‘Freiburg Alliance for Climate Protection’. Professionals from the regional energy agency and members of FESA, an association promoting renew-able energy and energy efficiency since 1993, frequently comment on local energy issues and initiate energy-related projects, from shared ownership schemes to awareness cam-paigns at schools. These activists share a broad vision of an alternative energy system in the city and the region with many citizens, who, in general, are comparatively well informed, as waves of letters to the editor in the regional newspaper and the success of some ad hoc signature lists and petitions has shown. Freiburg seems indeed to be a special place: experts and many citizens frequently engage in local energy political debates, for which they have developed various institutions. This constant pushing over decades arguably was also the reason for the municipality developing into a pioneer in the field of energy policy.

7.4 Learning from the cases: Can place-bound particularities and scaling influence sustainability transitions?

In both of our cases, the places were perceived as models for similar cities and regions. The main subject of these examples was not improved technology, but the socioeconomic fea-sibility of the ideas of a radically different energy future (e.g. the idea of a deprived district freeing itself from the chains of energy dependency by a combination of proven technology and changed business models and consumption patterns).

In such model regions, alternative configurations are developed and adopted to often particularly advantageous local conditions (Späth and Rohracher 2010). Such advantageous conditions can be linked to certain territories (e.g., by administrative institutions or infra-structures) or to certain places (e.g., by shared views on a particular region or city).

We observed that social actors in such interactions clearly differentiate between various levels on an institutional or spatial scale (from neighbourhoods to model districts and model regions to provincial, state, federal, larger regional and international levels). Ele-ments of both local nodes and global networks – to use the terminology of Smith (2007b) – are explicitly attributed to these governance and spatial scale levels. Strategies of fertiliza-tion across these levels, such as the creation of model regions to showcase the feasibility of presumably radical socio-technical innovations and to build up credibility and authority for an alternative configuration (more globally) have been found to be crucial for the emergence of transition momentum.

When we use the TPSN framework presented by Jessop et al. (2008) as a heuristic of spatial dimensions, we realize that our two cases actually provide evidence for the impor-tance of all four dimensions of socio-spatial relationships in socio-technical transitions: territories (T), places (P), scales (S) and networks (N).

Not only do municipalities like Freiburg make use of their constitutional powers to enforce legal standards within their territory (e.g., the regulation of heating networks or the implementation of energy-related building standards). The recent development of sub-national regions becoming recipients of European funds and territories for which


M


development plans are created (in order to receive such funds) represents a relevant shift of territorial power away from the national level. Our example from the district of Murau shows that access to power and financial resources at the European governance level can be roughly as important as those at the national level. In other cases where no support at all can be mobilized at the national level, these European resources might be even more important in the sense of an alternative, rather than an addition.

Places play a crucial role in both cases. The city of Freiburg is now promoted as a place to visit or invest in under the label ‘Green City’. However, even before this promotion, a green image and some self-reinforcing dynamics had emerged that had, presumably, attracted many highly skilled and engaged citizens to settle in the place or stay after a study period (see Späth and Rohracher 2011 for a more detailed discussion). This case showed that it was possible to intentionally create a primarily energy-related identity of a city from nearly nothing, just as the ‘energy from our own woods’ campaign in the District of Murau was able to mobilize a new sense of identity and community around the energy transition and local development agenda in an alpine valley (Späth 2012).

Scale is at the heart of the energy transition debate, as indicated in our introduction. That local action is urgently required because of the incapacity of the international and national levels to enforce a transition to the sustainable system of energy provision that is fundamental for the energy initiatives described. Social processes of scaling can, further-more, be observed in negotiations around regional development planning at various spatial scales in Styria (see p. 15). Equally, in the larger Freiburg area, the allocation of responsi-bilities between a) the municipal and b) the small trans-municipal level (i.e., planning regions comprising a few municipalities each) is constantly debated (e.g., with regard to the planning of wind turbines or measures of adaptation to climate change).

Finally, networks (N) are of crucial importance to the understanding of the described social dynamics. In both cases, explicitly local networks emerged or were created, which, nevertheless, were strategically linked with networks of explicitly trans-local character (Späth and Rohracher 2010; Späth and Rohracher 2012). In Murau a small network of local actors formed around an expert who was intuitively linking governance arenas from the municipal to the European level, communicating with colleagues from many European countries. In Freiburg the developments were characterized by the strong weight of civil society actors (e.g., alternative energy experts and concerned electricity consumers) inter-acting with the emerging image of the Solar Region and Green City, while pushing the city administration into pioneering energy policies. These pushes helped to set standards that were praised by an international public, not least due to the involvement of the municipality in international city networks and competitions.

Having re-analysed these cases in a space-sensitive way, we can follow Bridge et al. (2013) in their statement that ‘the low-carbon energy transition is fundamentally a geographical process that involves reconfiguring current spatial patterns of economic and social activity’ (p. 331). After considering the aspects of territory, place, scales and networks, we corrobo-rated the idea that the dimension of scale is of particular importance in current processes of energy transition. Furthermore,

Because the scale at which energy systems are organized and governed is not pre-ordained and arises instead as a product of economic and political decisions, it [is] useful to adopt the verb (scaling) rather [than] the noun (Bridge et al. 2013, p. 338).


M


Not only are particular notions of scale fundamental for the various energy political visions currently competing with one another. Also related to these technological and organiza-tional alternatives are certain preferences in regard to the governance levels to be given primary responsibility for the implementation of the envisaged energy futures. Energy governance at the city and regional level has mobilized so much hope and support recently that alternative framings, such as a national primacy (although heavily entrenched in many institutions) might come under severe discursive pressure in the near future. A declining confidence in energy security as provided by national or large commercial network opera-tors and an increasing interest in micro-grid solutions might be seen as the first indication of such a shift.

7.4.1 Can local energy systems deviate from the general energy regime at all?

As we described above, the energy regime in principle needs to be conceptualized within a global scope, although important elements of energy systems are organized at the national level (laws, regulation) where the main part of the governance capacity resides. An energy transition – understood as a radical, systemic and transformational change – would there-fore have to take place at this trans-local and, in fact, trans-national level. There can, however, be significant variations in regimes between nations as well as between regions or cities. Enabling such deviations are particularities of places and particular conditions in certain territories. As we have seen in our cases, social proximity of relevant actors, result-ing in trust and a sense of community, can be one such factor (compare: Walker et al. 2010). Discursive dynamics that are bound to places, such as a collective self-image of the inhabit-ants of a city or region, can apparently foster socio-technical developments locally that are in contrast to broader regime trends.

This insight leads us back to the core questions of the current debate regarding the geography of transitions: 1) To what extent can the socio-technical system of energy provi-sion and consumption in (small and medium) cities or regions been detached from the constraining factors of the general energy regime? and 2) Can such local deviations have an effect on the global regime as a whole? Examining our empirical material, we cannot state that the local energy systems have been completely decoupled from the broader socio-technical regime. For such a radical transformation to occur, the influence that can be exerted on a local level (in small and mid-sized cities) is too limited. However, dynamic interactions within and between cities or regions have brought about new socio-technical constellations that have generated momentum for further change at the regime level. Again our cases provide examples. Prescribing particularly demanding standards of insulation for new construction not only affects the quality of the buildings in Freiburg to which these prescriptions directly applied, but the companies and planners active in Freiburg had to adapt their own routines and now presumably tend to offer low-energy solutions to cus-tomers wherever they may be. Furthermore, the Freiburg Low Energy Standard repeatedly proved the feasibility of tighter regulations, which national-level regulations later caught up with. A municipally owned housing company, a research institute and other actors are currently shifting standards again by refurbishing some of Freiburg’s high-rise buildings from the 1970s so that they (nearly) meet passive house (ultra low energy) standard. In our reading, this suggests that a local energy constellation can, in fact, deviate significantly from the dominant energy regime. In Austria, the highly praised example of the deprived alpine district of Murau set an example of energy self-sufficiency and regional development


M


and has influenced the energy political debate on the provincial and national levels. Whether a generalization of such an experiment is in fact feasible or not, the showcase of a district aiming at energy autarky at least implicitly suggests a potential for its upscaling to a national or international level.

Sustained pressure on the broader regime may result particularly from the solidification of institutional and organizational innovations in such localities (e.g., contracting, energy agencies, strong municipal energy departments, and the re-municipalization of utilities).

7.5 Conclusions and outlook

In our analysis of initiatives aiming for energy transitions in Austria and Germany, we demonstrated that spatial aspects are crucial in both the competing visions of energy futures themselves (e.g., the promotion of a decentralizing energy provision) and to the power relations underlying the struggle over these competing visions (e.g., municipal poli-cies conflicting with provincial or national preferences). We have demonstrated that cities and regions can be important arenas for the negotiation of socio-technical futures. A space-sensitive analysis, however, can reveal far more than just issues related to multi-level gov-ernance. We highlighted especially the importance of interplaying discourses and networks of different spatial reach (from explicitly local to national and trans-national).

Such cases do not allow for simple generalizations. However, at least in political systems and cultural contexts comparable to Germany and Austria, it seems possible that local initiatives of sustainability oriented socio-technical change can have a durable impact not only on the local socio-technical configurations, but also influence public debates of national or even international reach. Of course, local actors aiming to bring about funda-mental change to a local energy system are, in many cases, dependent upon the support of non-local institutions, policies and actor constellations (particularly at the provincial, national and EU levels). However, such local initiatives are also important for broader transition dynamics, not only due to the nurturing of socio-technical niches, but, more importantly, because they can establish and align supportive institutions, visions and actor networks and facilitate changes also beyond the locality (advanced standards, model for other cities, etc.) – and, consequently, can expect some support from ‘higher’ governance levels, given their successful networking.

With regard to the possibility of complementing the MLP’s levels of structuration (niche, regime, landscape) with a spatial dimension, we welcome the conceptualization of ‘a second generation, multi-scalar MLP that explicitly incorporates a spatial scale’ by Raven et al. (2012, p. 63). Our cases demonstrated that, in fact,

regime dimensions, such as governance, value chains, [. . . .] research net-works, all have important transnational, as well as sub-national and local dimensions, besides national ones. Such a multi-scalar account assumes that actors, institutions, beliefs, and practices at all levels are embedded and entwined in broader transnational and sub-national spaces of innovation. (p. 69)

Our analysis made clear that socio-technical transition processes, which are currently at the focus of environmental governance, can and need to be studied not only from a scale-


M


sensitive perspective, but from a wider spatial-sensitive perspective. This holds particularly true for those who want to derive orientation for political action from such an analysis. Matters of territory and scaling lie openly at the heart of the political conflicts at stake. Matters of place and networks, however, are also involved and many initiatives at the city and regional level have recently started to explore the potential of agency at this level, contributing to a shift toward more sustainable systems of provision and consumption. It is important that conceptual development catches up with political practice. We are con-vinced that understanding the dynamics of socio-technical change to be spatially struc-tured can bring a new quality to our assessment and, possibly, also to the guidance of sustainability transitions. However, such a conceptualization needs a more solid grounding in further empirical work.

7.6 Acknowledgements

This chapter builds on empirical work done in 2004–2009, partly funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. We are grateful to two anony-mous reviewers and the editor for very detailed and constructive comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

References

Bridge G, Bouzarovski S, Bradshaw M, Eyre N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53 (February): 331–340.

Bulkeley H (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and net-works. Political Geography 24(8): 875–902.

Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2005). Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the ‘Urban’ Politics of Climate Change. Environmental Politics 14(1):42–63.

Bulkeley H, Broto VC, Hudson M, Marvin S (2011). Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bulkeley H, Kern K (2006). Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Studies 43(12):2237–2259.

Coenen L, Benneworth P, Truffer B (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy 41(6):968–979.

Coenen L, Raven R, Verbong G (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theo-retical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society 32(4):295–302.

Coenen L, Truffer B (2012). Places and Spaces of Sustainability Transitions: Geographical Contribu-tions to an Emerging Research and Policy Field. European Planning Studies 20(3):367–374.

Coutard O, Guy S (2007). STS and the City: Politics and Practices of Hope. Science Technology Human Values 32(6):713–734.

Dii (2012). 2050 Desert Power – Perspectives on a Sustainable Power System for EUMENA. Munich.Farla J, Markard J, Raven R, Coenen L (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look

at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79(6):991–998.Garud R, Gehman J (2012). Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary,

relational and durational. Research Policy 41(6):980–995.Geels F (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about

dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33(6–7):897–920.

1


M


Geels F (2005). Technological Transitions and System Innovations – A Co-Evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Geels F, Deuten JJ (2006). Local and global dynamics in technological development: a socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Science and Policy 33(4):265–275.

Geels FW, Schot J (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3):399–417.

Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological Economics 32(2):217–239.

Graham S, Marvin S (2001). Splintering Urbanism. Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.

Guy S, Marvin S (1996). Disconnected policy: the shaping of local energy management. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 14(1):145–158.

Hodson M, Marvin S (2009). Cities mediating technological transitions: understanding visions, intermediation and consequences. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 21(4):515–534.

Jessop B, Brenner N, Jones M (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26:389–401.

Lange J, Ufheil M, Tanner C (2010). Ausbau der Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung in der Stadt Freiburg. Freiburg: Solares Bauen/Klimabündnis Freiburg.

Loorbach D (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 23(1):161–183.

Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy 41(6):955–967.

Monstadt J (2007). Urban Governance and the Transition of Energy Systems: Institutional Change and Shifting Energy and Climate Policies in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(2):326–343.

Moser P, Kucharczak L, Hoppenbrock C (2009). How to achieve Renewable Energy Regions and advance Sustainable Development: Integrated models and processes in Germany. In P Droege, 100% Renewable – Energy Autonomy in Action. London: Earthscan, pp. 173–186.

Moss T, Newig J (2010). Multilevel Water Governance and Problems of Scale: Setting the Stage for a Broader Debate. Environmental Management 46(1):1–6.

Radzi A (2009). 100% Renewable Champions – International Case studies. In P Droege, 100% Renew-able – Energy Autonomy in Action. London, Earthscan: pp. 93–166.

Raven R, Schot J, Berkhout F (2012). Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 4(0):63–78.

Rip A, Kemp R (1998). Technological change. In S Rayner and EL Malone. Human Choice and Climate Change: Resources and Technology vol. 2. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press, pp. 327–399.

Rohracher H, Späth P (forthcoming). The interplay of urban energy policy and socio-technical transi-tions: The eco-cities of Graz and Freiburg in retrospect. Urban Studies (Special Issue edited by Coutard O and Rutherford J).

Smith A (2007a). Emerging in between: The multi-level governance of renewable energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 35(12):6266–6280.

Smith A (2007b). Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19(4):427–450.

Smith A, Raven R (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainabil-ity. Research Policy 41(6):1025–1036.

Smith A, Voß J-P, Grin J (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy 39(4):435–448.

Späth P (2012). Understanding the social dynamics of Energy Regions – The importance of discourse analysis. Sustainability (4):1256–1273.

2


M


Späth P, Radecki A v, Rohracher H (2012). Appreciating incumbent’s agency: The case of a local e-mobility initiative in Stuttgart, Germany. IST 2012. Copenhagen.

Späth P, Rohracher H (2010). ‘Energy Regions’: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy 39(4):449–458.

Späth P, Rohracher H (2011). The ‘Eco-Cities’ Freiburg and Graz – The social dynamics of pioneering urban energy & climate governance. In H Bulkeley, V Castán Broto, M Hodson and S Marvin. Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 88–106.

Späth P, Rohracher H (2012). Local Demonstrations for Global Transitions –Dynamics across Gov-ernance Levels Fostering Socio-Technical Regime Change Towards Sustainability. European Plan-ning Studies 20(3):461–479.

STRN Network (Steering Group) (2010). A mission statement and research agenda for the Sustain-ability Transitions Research Network. www.transitionsnetwork.org/.../STRN_research_agenda_20 _August_. . .

Truffer B (2008). Society, technology and region: contributions from the social study of technology to economic geography. Environment and Planning A 40(4):966–985.

Truffer B, Coenen L (2012). Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Regional Studies. Regional Studies 46(1):1–21.

Walker G, Devine-Wright P, Hunter S, High H, Evans B (2010). Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 38(6):2655–2663.

Wissen M (2009). Contested terrains: Politics of scale, the national state and struggles for the control over nature. Review of International Political Economy 16(5):883–906.

Späth, P. & Rohracher, H. (2014). "Beyond localism: The spatial scale and scaling in energy transitions". In: Padt, F. et al.: Scale-sensitive governance of the environment. Edited

Documents