Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions

Abstract

The challenges of sustainable development (and climate change and peak oil, in particular) demand system-wide transformations in sociotechnical systems of provision. An academic literature around coevolutionary innovation for sustainability has recently emerged as an attempt to understand the dynamics and directions of such sociotechnical transformations, which are termed 'sustainability transitions'. This literature has previously focused on market-based technological innovations. Here we apply it to a new context of civil-society-based social innovation and examine the role of community-based initiatives in a transition to a low-carbon sustainable economy in the UK. We present new empirical research from a study of the UK's Transition Towns movement (a 'grassroots innovation') and assess its attempts to grow and infl uence wider societal sociotechnical systems. By applying strategic niche management theory to this civil society context, we deliver theoretically informed practical recommendations for this movement to diff use beyond its niche: to foster deeper engagement with resourceful regime actors; to manage expectations more realistically by delivering tangible opportunities for action and participation; and to embrace a community-based, action-oriented model of social change (in preference to a cognitive theory of behaviour change). Furthermore, our study indicates areas where theory can be refi ned to better explain the growth and broader impacts of grassroots innovations-namely, through a fuller appreciation of the importance of internal niche processes, by understanding the important role of identity and group formation, and by resolving how social practices change in grassroots innovations.

Social innovation in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept

“…Its aim is to understand how technological systems are embedded within their wider institutional, political and social contexts, by defining a socio-technical regime as the coherent complex of scientific knowledge, engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, established user needs, regulatory requirements, institutions and infrastructures (Rip and Kemp, 1998: 338). This embedding suggests that all change within the regime is likely to be path-dependent, whereas radical change is likely to originate from the outside (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). Such considerations are extremely important in debates about climate change and about whether it can be addressed incrementally or only through a new technological regime (Moore et al, 2014;Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012).…”

“…This embedding suggests that all change within the regime is likely to be path-dependent, whereas radical change is likely to originate from the outside (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). Such considerations are extremely important in debates about climate change and about whether it can be addressed incrementally or only through a new technological regime (Moore et al, 2014;Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012).…”

“…First, new ideas start out by operating at the niche level, where they are protected from market or political forces and have the freedom to develop and test new solutions. At this stage, three processes are crucial to ensure their successful development: managing expectations, building social networks and learning (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). Only in case these processes are well managed and the new idea is allowed to grow and emerge, does it get upscaled to regime (meso-level), where it assumes the characteristics cited in the previous paragraph.…”

“…These activities are radical in reference to the context in which they exist and therefore are explicitly about challenging the status quo, namely by addressing asymmetrical power relationships. Examples of this type of SI include: transition towns, which are grassroots community initiatives that aim to build sustainable living environments, by reducing CO2 emissions and addressing inequality (Scott-Cato and Hillier, 2010;Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012); alternative local currencies, such as time banks, where individuals can exchange goods and services without using traditional currencies (Gibson-Graham and Roelvink, 2013); or indigenous social movements, that aim to strengthen local cultures while also addressing discrimination and the lack of equal rights (Tapsell and Woods, 2010).…”

Understanding Energy Poverty, Vulnerability and Justice

“…The first is the 'infrastructure and systems of provision' paradigm (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012;Southerton, Chappells, & Vliet, 2004;Wilhite et al, 2000) which, put briefly, describes the institutional dynamics and material cultures surrounding the rise of commodity-specific chains that connect production, distribution and consumption activities. By assigning a 'vertical' logic (Fine, 1993) to the circulation of commodities and services, systems of provision approaches affirm the multiple interdependencies and standardizations that allow for the delivery of specific goods and services to the final consumer.…”