La interpretación del beneficio

Another theory principally intended for investigating how to steer future directions instead is the transition management (TM) approach. According to Loorbach, (2007), Transition Management is a new mode of governance for sustainable development that is aimed at enabling, facilitating and guiding transitions to sustainability. Therefore, TM is a framework to steer future change.

TM is based on a different process-oriented driving that attempts to mediate uncertainty and complexity with the management intervention. One of distinctive feature of TM is that transitions towards socially here are seen in a perspective of steering (Schot et al., 1994; Kemp et al., 1998; Van der Laak et al., 2007; Kemp and Loorbach, 2006, Loorbach, 2007). According to Lachman (2013), key elements of TM can be summarized as follows:

 experimenting and learning to guide variation and selection (learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning) in order to keep all options in consideration and the playing field open;

 inclusion of multiple stakeholders (from multiple domains and levels) input through inclusion and involvement;

 complementing conventional policies (which has a short-term focus) with long-term goals with the aim to sustainable development;

 continuous reflection (monitoring, evaluating, improving) on all levels;

 bringing system innovations alongside system improvement.

Currently, TM is broadly applied to stimulate sustainability transitions on the scale of regions, cities and community as well as to initiate transformations in socio-technological systems (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2008, Loorbach, 2010).

However, the aim of the transition management is not the realization of a specific transition, but it is a “basket of objectives” formed by the sharing visions of those

140

participating. This is a social vision and thus not only comprehensible for individuals with expert scientific knowledge. Particularly, TM combines bottom-up and top-down framework for a goal-oriented modulation. To achieve this goal, TM is executed on three levels (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2006; Loorbach, 2010):

 Strategic: activities at the level of a societal system that take into account a long time perspective; that relate to structuring a complex societal problem and creating alternative futures;

 Tactical: activities at the level of sub-systems that relate to build-up and break-down of system structures (institutions, regulation, physical infrastructures, financial infrastructures and so on);

 Operational: activities that relate to short-term and everyday decisions and action. At this level actors either recreate system structures or they choose to restructure or change them;

According to Loorbach and Rotmans, (2006), the Transition Management consist of a cyclic process with four phases implemented at different levels: problem structuring and envisioning (strategic level), agenda building and networking (tactical level), experimenting and diffusing (operational level). Its operationalized depends on continuous monitoring, evaluating and adjusting on all levels. The three level of TM can be combined to the other TST frameworks such as the multi-level perspectives and SNM. In particular, TM can be considered as a multi-level governance scheme in which managing is operated through improving the interaction between the different levels of MLP. Especially, operational sphere act at niche level, the tactical sphere within the regime and finally strategic sphere tends to influence the landscape through long-term goals. Therefore TM focuses on the management action strategically connecting problems and solutions at different levels. Figure 43 shows the four phases of the Transition Management cycle in relation to the three different level of multi-level perspectives.

141

Figure 43: Transition Management Cycle (Loorbach and Rootmans, 2006)

Instead of three levels, a fourth level has been recognized as the basis of theoretical explorations and practical experiences: reflexivity (Lissandrello and Grin, 201; Sterrenberg, 2013; Loorbach, 2008). In Figure 44, a revision of TM cycle is proposed adding reflexive level. Grin and Weterings (2005) have identified reflexive monitoring as “a participatory process of describing, evaluating, and reflecting on ongoing activities, designed to strengthen both the quality and impact of a project, concurrently, by feeding back into the project an understanding of its proceedings”. However, to move transitions ahead we just do not need of managers that know the present and know how to design the process, but also planning and in particular ‘reflexive planning’. According to Lissandrello and Grin (2011) reflexivity concerns both how the design of new practices takes place and also how planners’ actions inevitably cause a confrontation between the emerging, exigent present problems and the persistence of existing approaches, structures, and systems. Transitions require ‘reflexive planning’ therefore a capacity of agency that entails a change in the habits, imagination, and judgment of the actors involved in relation to different structural and temporal orientations (in relation to the past, in the possibility of the present and in the visions of the future). A reflexive phase is then crucial for moving transition processes ahead.

142

Indeed, reflexivity allows to identify weaknesses and strengths in view of possible of sustainability paths along the various phases of the planning process and to explore new ways to overcome them. In practical terms, reflexive activities are not just related to the evaluation of the experiments and learning, but also by shaping the future through learning.

Figure 44:Four Levels of Transition Management Cycle (Adapted by the author from Rootmans and Loorbach, 2008)

143

Level Phase Systemic instrument Actions

Strategic Problem structuring

Tactical Development of long-term visions Framing the transition challenge

Table 17: Transition Management Process Description

144 5.10.1 The Transition Management process

Beside the conceptually notions of TM mainly based on complex systems theory and new forms of governance, TM has been practically implemented. The most remarkable process of TM have been developed by Rotmans and Loorbach (2006) and include four phases and different systemic instruments. The TM process is described by connecting levels, phases to systemic instruments and illustrating actions. As outlined in Table 17, in the implementation of the process different phases and key instruments are distinguished. Primarily, a transition team is formed to drive the process and embed it in the local context. The transition team starts to explore the context, conducting interviews and doing research, and working towards a system analysis and actor analysis. Based on the actor analysis, diverse groups of people are invited to engage in a series of meetings as a transition arena. According to Fink (1996 in Jorgesen), the term ‘arena’ is a metaphor taken from political and social theory. In the framework of TST, the approach of arena of development, AOD, has been developed by Jørgensen and Sørensen (2002) who has proposed a flat approach inspired by the actor-network theory instead of the hierarchal framework of MLP. In this context, it is referred to the word’s original meaning in Arabic – ‘sand on sand’ – to indicate the spatial and relational temporality and fluidity of the phenomena for which the approach provides the analytical framework. Transition arena emphasizes the temporary and actor-dependent character of the fields that hold social ordering and in which change and transitions take place. In the transition arena, the actors-group are the change agents which explore the transition challenges and create a shared problem framing. According to Roorda (2014), change agents are individuals willing to go beyond ‘business-as-usual’, who are intrinsically connected to the issue at hand and are open to other perspectives. Subsequently, they exchange and elaborate perspectives on a possible future, thereby creating visionary images for the future of the city. As a final step in the transition arena setting, the change agents elaborate transition pathways, indicating fundamental changes and corresponding actions needed to reach the envisioned future. The ideas brought forward by the transition arena are summarized and published in a transition agenda. Actions are

145

undertaken to make the transition agenda public and give others a chance to adopt and adapt it, and relate it to their own agenda and practices. A shared transition agenda provides a starting point for involving a wider group and instigating new activities, networks and collaborations. In this context, transition experiments are the main instruments for actors engagements. Through these radical short-term actions in line with the transition agenda, are initiated or adapted. Transition experiments give an impulse provide agents with an opportunity to involve other actors and engage a broader audience. As a result, insights from these experiments can be taken to a more strategic level. One of the consequences of TM process is to create a supportive network of policy officers and representatives of companies and other organizations for these bottom-up sustainability initiatives.

To sum up, Transition Management is based on the empirical and theoretical understandings of transition studies. Therefore TM can influence the direction and pace of societal change dynamics towards sustainability. According to Roorda et al. (2014), TM is characterized by six principles which can influence transitions process:

 Acknowledge the complexity of the challenges. TM understands the dynamics and interlinkages of multiple domains, actors, and scales. This can be done by thoroughly examining the existing situation, as well as by questioning assumptions, problem perceptions, and dominant solutions.

 Recognize the difference between system optimisation and system innovation. The latter requires taking small but radical steps, guided by a long-term perspective, which can be acquired by questioning mindsets and being open to unorthodox ideas and actions.

 Give room to diversity and flexibility. The future can neither be predicted nor planned. Options should therefore be kept open by exploring multiple pathways when working on strategies and actions. Resistance and barriers should be anticipated, and diversity fostered. Involving a variety of perspectives will enable cross-fertilisation and prevent ‘tunnel vision’.

146

 Co-create. Neither local government, nor any other single actor can address sustainability challenges on its own. A variety of people and organizations make decisions that influence the future on a daily basis. As a local government, it is important to engage multiple stakeholders beyond simply providing input – everyone can be considered a decision maker, contributing their positions and perspectives.

 Systemic thinking. Achieving ambitious targets is difficult when vested interests and positions are taken as a starting point. Therefore, actors who are already adopting new or alternative ways of thinking and doing (change agents) should be found, as they can be influential in mediating and triggering transitions. They should be actively engaged and supported with the resources and opportunities needed to realize innovation.

 Facilitate social and institutional learning. Learning is essential for societal change. Opening up to actors with different backgrounds provides better insights into the challenges of and opportunities for change. The aim is short-term action aligned with a long-short-term vision to learn about new practices and current constraints. Learning processes should be supported by providing time for reflection and creating a setting that supports mutual trust and openness.