Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses

In the multi-level perspective (MLP), two key levels are socio-technical regimes and technological niches. The linking processes between these levels, however, are not well understood. We use the concept of anchoring as a starting point towards a theory of linking and distinguish three forms: technological, network and institutional anchoring. Our case study concerns attempts to reduce energy consumption in the Dutch glasshouse horticulture sector, consisting of a variety of alternative energy approaches. Distinguishing the three forms of anchoring appears to be useful for studying and understanding the interactions between novelty, niche and regime. The study reveals that ‘hybrid actors’ and ‘hybrid forums’ play a crucial role in bringing about various forms of anchoring. These findings are not only of analytical interest, but also relevant for practitioners who desire to induce system innovation to contribute to sustainability.

[1]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations. , 1995 .

[2]  Rob P. J. M. Raven,et al.  Multi-Regime Interactions in the Dutch Energy Sector: The Case of Combined Heat and Power Technologies in the Netherlands 1970–2000 , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[3]  F. Geels.  The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms , 2011 .

[4]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Balancing multiple interests: embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure , 2008 .

[5]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840-1930): the dynamics of regime transformation , 2006 .

[6]  J. Howells.  Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation , 2006 .

[7]  Johan Schot,et al.  Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management , 2002 .

[8]  F. Geels.  Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[9]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Rethinking Communication in Innovation Processes: Creating Space for Change in Complex Systems , 2011 .

[10]  Aad Correljé,et al.  The Transition from Coal to Gas: Radical Change of the Dutch Gas System , 2004 .

[11]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[12]  Rpjm Rob Raven,et al.  Niche accumulation and hybridisation strategies in transition processes towards a sustainable energy system: An assessment of differences and pitfalls , 2007 .

[13]  Edward W. Constant,et al.  The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution , 1982 .

[14]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Normative contestation in transitions ‘in the making’: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry , 2011 .

[15]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change , 1998 .

[16]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[17]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[18]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[19]  Johan Schot,et al.  The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation. The case of the Netherlands in the nineteenth century , 1998 .

[20]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[21]  F. Geels.  Technological Transitions And System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary And Socio-technical Analysis , 2005 .

[22]  Audley Genus,et al.  Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions , 2008 .

[23]  F. Geels.  From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[24]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  On the Role of Outsiders in Technical Development , 2000 .

[25]  B. V. Mierlo,et al.  Convergent and divergent learning in photovoltaic pilot projects and subsequent niche development , 2012 .