Call for Abstracts

This is the main theme of the 16th International Sustainability Transitions Conference 2025 (IST’25). As global emissions rise and Sustainable Development Goals regress, rapid and deep transformation of production and consumption systems is more critical than ever. But empirical transitions research increasingly suggests that structural change involves tensions and trade-offs between scale, scope, and speed. Instances of rapid transitions (like solar-PV or electric vehicles) are often modular, but not necessarily deep or system-wide. This thus challenges the assumptions of early (and some ongoing) transitions research that structural change can be simultaneously fast, deep, and broad. Structural change may also have unintended consequences such as increased inequality and resource strain.

This track aims to deepen our understanding of these dilemmas, conflicts and possibilities of structural change in transitions to meeting climate and sustainability goals.

We invite both conceptual and empirical contributions that address tensions, conflicts and trade-offs of structural change in sustainable transitions, along the lines proposed in the conference theme. Contributions may have the form of papers, speed talks or posters. We namely, but not exclusively, encourage contributions that cover the following topics:

• Opportunities and limitations of reconciling rapid and deep changes;
• Unexpected effects of the diffusion of clean technologies (e.g. inequality, unemployment, insecurity, resource depletion, pollution, etc.) and strategies to avoid or mitigate them;
• Understanding the nature of structural change necessary for whole-system transformation to sustainable net-zero pathways;
• Obstacles and threats that hinder the structural change needed to transform the production and consumption system underlying sustainable transition, as well as Factors that can help unlock these obstacles.

Six years have passed since the publication of the research agenda (Köhler et al, 2019) and there is a growing number of books taking stock of the evolution of the sociotechnical sustainability transition field (e.g., Geels, 2024; Wesche, 2024). However, the increasingly complex and bumpy journey to sustainability transition calls for the refinement of the current frameworks as well as the development of new conceptualizations for understanding transitions and their impacts.

This calls for reconsidering existing frameworks and advancing beyond the current conceptualization of themes such as acceleration (e.g., Markard et al., 2020), depth (e.g., Andersen et al., 2023) or scale (e.g., Wilson et al., 2021) in sustainability transitions. It may lead to new developments in the existing frameworks, or the development of new explanations based on the combination of different transition frameworks (e.g., Andersen Geels, 2023) or their hybridization with other theories (e.g., Geels et al., 2023).

This track welcomes theoretical contributions debating these and other conceptual issues of sustainability transitions that are not covered in the other tracks.

References

1. Andersen, A. D., & Geels, F. W. (2023). Multi-system dynamics and the speed of net-zero transitions: Identifying causal processes related to technologies, actors, and institutions. Energy Research & Social Science, 102, 103178.
2. Andersen, A. D., Geels, F. W., Coenen, L., Hanson, J., Korsnes, M., Linnerud, K., … & Wiebe, K. (2023). Faster, broader, and deeper! Suggested directions for research on net-zero transitions. Oxford Open Energy, 2, oiad007.
3. Geels, F. W. (2024). Advanced introduction to sustainability transitions. Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Geels, F. W., Kern, F., & Clark, W. C. (2023). System transitions research and sustainable development: Challenges, progress, and prospects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(47), e2206230120.
5. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 31, 1-32.
6. Markard, J., Geels, F. W., & Raven, R. (2020). Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 15(8), 081001.
7. Wesche J., Hendriks A. (2024), Introduction to Sustainability Transitions Research, http://sustainabilitytransitionsbook.com/
8. Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Bento, N., Healey, S., De Stercke, S., & Zimm, C. (2020). Granular technologies to accelerate decarbonization. Science, 368(6486), 36-39.

The STRN Research Agenda (Köhler et al 2019) included a section specifically on methods in transitions research. The reason for this is that there was still (in 2019) a limited literature on what methodological questions challenge transitions research. The agenda identifies many methodological tensions and trade-offs in methods, such between in-depth particularity vs. generic insight; for process analysis historical transitions vs. system innovation in-the-making; micro vs. macro analysis; complexity reduction vs. complexity articulation; engaged, transdisciplinary research vs. distanced research. Concurrently, calls for co-productive modes of knowledge creation have also gained traction, and their scientific practices entail much closer collaborations with diverse societal actors (e.g. activists, business advisors, bankers, NGOs, politicians) – that can at times be considered controversial – whose interests do we serve? How do we safeguard the role of scientific knowledge as a public good when it emerges from interactions with various public and private actors? These add methodological considerations about the ethical role of the scientist and the trade-off between impact and methodological rigour.

This track aims to gather the advances that have been proposed to deal with the above methodological tensions and trade-offs. A perhaps encouraging trend is the growing methodological diversity (Hansmeier et al. 2021). Increasing methodological reach and diversity is also needed to connect insights from transition studies with other fields that explicitly study system transformation.

The track welcomes further debate on the methodological orientation of the field and the associated epistemological and normative considerations. We identify three main orientations: exploratory qualitative research, quantitative approaches, and action researcher practices. 

Regarding qualitative methods, one can think of the efforts towards more rigorous process tracing (Geels 2022) and typology building (Kanger 2024). Socio-technical configuration analysis (Heiberg et al. 2022) can be appreciated as a  more systematic pursuit of patterns in case studies, similar in spirit to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Meanwhile, the pursuit of qualitative rigour is complemented by a broader concern for finesse in qualitative transitions research, minding for example the attendant paradoxes (Pel et al. 2023). Other relevant developments in qualitative methodology are the attention to issues of epistemic justice, the deepening of critical methods (queer, feminist, and decolonial perspectives), and the exploration of the emotive-psychological side of transitions – which extends into transition research methodology.

Modelling approaches need to recognise the co-evolutionary, systemic nature of transitions. They can contribute to understanding transitions processes through empirical analysis, but can also be part of knowledge co-creation and transitions management processes.

While still considered at the margins of the field (Zolfagharian et al. 2019), we do see a steady increase in experimental, transdisciplinary forms of research, which are often motivated by a conviction that achieving societal impact through science should be intentional, explicit and its pathways of change be jointly created with the societal actors involved, influenced, and impacted by the scientific processes (cf. Latour, 1987). These more action-oriented methods require scholars to enact and perform various roles simultaneously (Van Breda & Swilling, 2019; Lähteenoja, 2024) and stem from traditionally unconventional academic work that can range from consulting and policy advisory, to action and embedded research.  Effective and efficient engagement in experimental settings may require both adaptations of traditional research methods and the development of new methodologies in order to navigate the sometimes differing aims and expectations of academic and non-academic actors (van Waes et al., 2021). This includes efforts towards carving out ‘transformative research’ as a specific form of transdisciplinary research in the context of transformative change (Horcea-Milcu et al. 2024), the use of insights from such research to deepen theoretical insights (Avelino et al. 2023) or exploring the role(s) and impact of experimental settings in system-level transition processes (von Wirth et al., 2019). 

This track will explore methodological advances in these areas in relation to the key scientific challenges for the field. Papers considering tensions or trade-offs traded through various methodological approaches are invited. The track deliberatively aims to gather quantitative, qualitative and mixed, transdisciplinary approaches. Methodological areas include, but are not confined to:

Experimental methods, scenario studies, ethnography, real-world laboratories, surveys, discourse analysis, process tracing, qualitative comparative analysis, simulation modelling, soft systems methodology, configuration analysis, agent-based modelling, critical approaches (queer, feminist, decolonial), typology construction. Connections to methods from other research fields that address similar or relevant tensions are also important. 

We invite reflections on both epistemological considerations (generalisability, rigour, ecological validity, societal meaning, perspectives on knowledge) and ethical reflections (specific value orientations and real-world stakes and interests, power dynamics, epistemic justice, memberships, and legitimacy and ethics; Caniglia et al., 2023; Strumińska-Kutra & Scholl, 2022; Turnhout et al., 2020; van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2015; Wittmayer et al., 2024).

Track Convenors: Jonathan Köhler, PJ Beers, Floor Alkemade, Lea Fünfschilling, Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang, Satu Lähteenoja, Bonno Pel, Verena Schmid, Anton Sentic, Mapula Tshangela, Julia Wittmayer

Corresponding convenor: Jonathan Köhler (j.koehler@isi.fraunhofer.de) 

This track seeks to address societal aspects of sustainability transitions with a focus on social acceptance, justice and Global South perspectives. These three themes are highly interlinked. Social acceptance connects, amongst others, to power dynamics, equity and fairness of decision making processes. Thus, it connects to the tripartite model of justice (Avelino et al 2024). Social acceptance and just transitions are of global relevance. Nevertheless, perspectives from the Global South are notoriously underrepresented and neglected. Accordingly, this track aims to expand the space for Global South perspectives.

While the three themes within this track are interlinked, contributions can cover them separately. Thus, in the following each theme is introduced separately:

Justice:

Discussing just transitions is central to the IST 2025 conference theme, which focuses on tensions and trade-offs in structural changes for sustainability transitions. Current polycrises, characterised by their border-crossing, multi-scale and intersectional properties, invoke an urgent need for the scrutiny of justice dimensions. So far, justice concerns have been mainly addressed as redistribution of resources to address inequality (distributional justice), through fair and democratic engagements (procedural justice) and recognising the most vulnerable in processes of societal change (recognitional justice). Many of these justice issues have structural components (Powers, 2019), reflecting the complexity of placing justice as a core concern in sustainability transitions. Many questions on how to translate and apply these and other concepts of justice dimensions remain. 

Justice concerns in sustainability transitions span diverse fields, including but not limited to, energy transitions (Williams and Doyon, 2019), environmental justice (Agyeman et al., 2016), mobility justice (Scheller, 2018), as well as dietary transition (Kaljonen et al., 2021). Considering justice as a vital part of sustainability transitions opens up a wide area of normative and political research questions sensitive for both our visions of a sustainable society, as well as how we define what is just (Avelino et al., 2024). Addressing justice issues might also require questioning research practices and knowledge production (Gupta et al., 2024), which are dominated by Western values – thus, putting epistemic justice at the core of the discussion. It might also call for decolonising our ideas about transformations (Agathangelou, 2024) and opening up the conversation to other worldviews or cosmologies, with a particular focus on Global South perspectives.

Social acceptance:

Central to justice issues are concepts of social acceptance of transitions’ processes and technologies. Social acceptance has long provided a robust foundation for discussions on pathways, conflicts, and cooperation in sustainability transition studies (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). Over time, social acceptance research has evolved to uncover the multi-level causes of local opposition, particularly in contexts like offshore wind farms, where non-financial factors such as personal preferences, environmental concerns, landscape impacts, decision-making processes, and health risks play significant roles (Firestone et al., 2009; Haggett, 2011). 

Sustainability transition scholars have increasingly recognized that opposition is not merely a matter of individual attitudes or preferences but is deeply embedded in broader structures of power and equity. Dimensions like power dynamics and energy justice are often shaped by existing power dynamics (Ellis & Ferraro, 2017; Park et al., 2024). Moving beyond simplistic explanations like NIMBYism, recent studies highlight the importance of pluralized understanding and advocate for frameworks accounting for broader societal and environmental considerations (Haggett et al., 2020; Ellis & Ferraro, 2017). Power dynamics determine not only whose perspectives are heard but also how conflicts are framed and resolved. For instance, collaborative planning that recognises the subjectivity of residents while ensuring procedural justice (Hall & Lazarus, 2015). By shifting focus to these dynamics, we could better address the root causes of conflict and foster more equitable pathways for social acceptance issues.

Global South perspectives:

In addition to addressing Justice, sustainability transitions in contexts of the Global South is an increasingly important domain of research due to wicked interconnected systemic challenges for the provision of water, health, education, food, mobility, and energy under the severe threats of climate change, political extremism and instability.

The term ‘Global South’ usually functions as a shorthand for countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that differ significantly in terms of economic trajectories, institutional arrangements, and everyday political life with the so-called Global North (Berger, 2020). While there is unease about and with the term’s use, we approach it as a fluid category, characterised by plurality, tensions and polyphonies (Waisbich et al., 2021) which we invite contributors to consider.

The majority of the world’s population living in Global South contexts have historically and currently experienced socio-economic and climate vulnerabilities and injustices, in spite of contributing the least to emissions and unsustainable lifestyles (Swilling, 2020; Ritchie and Roser, 2023). Aiming for sustainable development, many Asian, African and Latin American countries, regions and cities are balancing economic growth with environmental protection and social inclusion, potentially addressing the on-going impacts of oppression wrought by imperialism and colonialism (Tirado-Herreo & Fuller, 2021; Sultana, 2023). Theories and methods of transitions research could be enriched by drawing lessons from the empirical analysis of systems and innovations in the Global South under such harsh realities as well as through engaging and co-producing knowledge with scholars and practitioners in and from the Global South.   

New and ongoing research is attempting to fill knowledge gaps on key geographical, socio-economic and policy factors such as  service delivery, poverty, unemployment and inadequate regulatory frameworks, critical to the emergence of sustainability transitions in the Global South (Ramos-Mejia., 2018; Oates, 2021). Where transitions are emerging, there is little accessible data tracking progress and identifying areas/directions for acceleration. The literature also hardly engages with alternative theories of change that could explain and exemplify plurality and heterogeneity of perspectives, storylines and pathways. Finally, there is an urgent need to foreground innovative, transdisciplinary methods of research in order to fully understand and appreciate the complex dynamics in the Global South. Addressing these knowledge gaps can lead to greater collaboration among different stakeholders to leverage their expertise and resources towards more effective and context-specific solutions tailored to the challenges and opportunities that the Global South faces and avails.

We are open to the topics listed below relevant to one or all of the focus themes: Justice, Societal Acceptance and/or Transitions in the Global South (Careful consideration will also be made for IST2025 papers dealing with Justice in the Global North, especially where they have intersectionality with Global South perspectives.  

I: UNDERSTANDING KEY GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL FACTORS INFLUENCING TRANSITIONS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH:

• Different theoretical conceptualisations of what is the ‘Global South’
• Deeper understanding of context specific challenges and opportunities for transitions
• Institutional challenges, failures, opportunities 
• Decolonial concepts, theories and approaches to transitions
• Inequalities and other Just transition dilemmas and tensions in the Global South
• Industrialisation & livelihoods in a decarbonising Global South

II: MAPPING, MONITORING ONGOING TRANSITIONS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

• Exploration of pluralities of innovations and heterogeneity of practices
• Role of plural, decolonial future visions and local knowledge in transitions
• Alternative and multiple pathways of transitions
• Comparative case studies in different systems and geographies
• The role of informality and its opportunities and challenges in a more just world

III:  ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF STUDYING AND GOVERNANCE OF TRANSITIONS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

• New approaches to governing and managing transitions in context of development
• Transdisciplinary, action research with communities of practise
• Storytelling and oral history methods
• Stories from practitioners
• Challenges of ethical practices in conducting field research in the Global South

IV: NORMATIVE, EMOTIONAL AND EVERYDAY ASPECTS OF TRANSITIONS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH – 

• Values and Emotions steering and affecting transitions
• Adaptation, resilience, coping with ongoing transitions
• Role of indigenous practices
• Impact and outcomes of social practises 
• Scale and depth of transitions

V: CONNECTING SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION WITH JUSTICE CONCERNS 

• How can we design participative transitions research to fulfil multiple justice criteria?
• How should/can researchers deal with this highly political and normative field of research? 
• What is the relationship between power (relationships/ distribution) and justice in sustainability transitions?
• How do transitions affect distributional justice, and how is this process related to procedural and recognitional justice?  
• What are different ways to make sense of trade-offs and contestations around just transitions in a pluriversal world?
• How can decolonial approaches help us to address justice concerns in sustainability transitions? 

VI: LINKING SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE TO POWER AND JUSTICE

• How do power dynamics and social inequalities shape conflicts over renewable energy projects?
• Do energy justice and critical studies help us reconceptualize societal acceptance toward equitable energy transitions?
• How can under-theorized cases, particularly from the Global South, contribute to a more inclusive understanding of societal acceptance?
• What policy or strategies can be employed to address tensions in ways that foster societal acceptance or just transition?
• How can innovative methodologies or interdisciplinary approaches help us better understand and address the contestations surrounding societal acceptance in sustainability transitions?
• Is it still fair to use the term ‘social acceptance’, or do we need alternative framing for it to reflect justice, global contexts, and theoretical evolution? 

Format: The track will comprise of a set of paper presentation/speedtalk sessions and a final dialogue session where all chairs in the track will be invited to share key learnings and takeaways across all sessions, to advance the research agenda and strengthen the network of scholars that are focusing on Global South, Justice and Social Acceptance themes.

Track Convenors: Katharina Biely, Giulia Mininni, Diana Morales, Marina Novikova, Sumit Kumar, Bipashyee Ghosh, Katharina Schiller, Mapula Tshangela, Nontsikelelo Mogosetsi, Merin Raju Jacob, Rafael Carvalho Machado, Alboricah Bathupetsane, Seona Park

Corresponding convenor: Sumit Kumar (Sumit.Kumar@monash.edu)

References:

1. Agathangelou, A. M. (2024). Time, transition, and planetary decolonial justice as invention. Environmental Politics, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2024.2404377

2. Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthews, C. (2016). Trends and directions in environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 321-340.

3. Avelino, F., Wijsman, K., van Steenbergen, F., Jhagroe, S., Wittmayer, J., Akerboom, S., Bogner, K., Jansen, E. F., Frantzeskaki, N., & Kalfagianni, A. (2024). Just Sustainability Transitions: Politics, Power, and Prefiguration in Transformative Change Toward Justice and Sustainability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 49(Volume 49, 2024), 519-547. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-081722

4. Berger, T. (2020). The ‘Global South’ as a relational category – global hierarchies in the production of law and legal pluralism. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2001–2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1827948

5. Ellis, G., & Ferraro, G. (2017). The social acceptance of wind energy: Where we stand and the path ahead.

6. Firestone, J., Kempton, W., & Krueger, A. (2009). Public acceptance of offshore wind power projects in the USA. Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology, 12(2), 183-202.

7. Gupta, J., Bai, X., Liverman, D. M., Rockström, J., Qin, D., Stewart-Koster, B., Rocha, J. C., Jacobson, L., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Bala, G., Bunn, S. E., Ciobanu, D., DeClerck, F., Ebi, K. L., Gifford, L., Gordon, C., Hasan, S.,…Gentile, G. (2024). A just world on a safe planet: Lancet Planetary Health Earth Commission report on Earth-system boundaries, translations, and transformations. The Lancet Planetary Health, 8(10), e813-e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00042-1

8. Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy, 39(2), 503-510.

9. Haggett, C., Brink, T. T., Russell, A., Roach, M., Firestone, J., Dalton, T., & McCay, B. J. (2020). Offshore wind projects and fisheries. Oceanography, 33(4), 38-47.

10. Hall, D. M., & Lazarus, E. D. (2015). Deep waters: Lessons from community meetings about offshore wind resource development in the US. Marine Policy, 57, 9-17.

11. Kaljonen, M., Kortetmäki, T., Tribaldos, T., Huttunen, S., Karttunen, K., Maluf, R. S., … & Valsta, L. (2021). Justice in transitions: Widening considerations of justice in dietary transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 474-485.

12. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32.

13. Oates, L. (2021). Sustainability transitions in the Global South: a multi-level perspective on urban service delivery. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 8(1), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1995478

14. Park, S., Yun, S. J., & Cho, K. (2024). Energy justice: Lessons from offshore wind farm siting conflicts in South Korea. Energy Policy, 185, 113972.

15. Powers, M. (2019). What Structural Injustice Is. In M. Powers & R. Faden (Eds.), Structural Injustice: Power, Advantage, and Human Rights (pp. 85-115). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190053987.003.0004

16. Sheller, M. (2018). Mobility justice: The politics of movement in an age of extremes. Verso Books.

17. Ramos-Mejia, M., Franco-Garcia, M-L., & Jauregui-Becker, J. M. (2018). Sustainability transitions in the developing world: Challenges of socio-technical transformations unfolding in contexts of poverty. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 217-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.010

18. Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2023). Global inequalities in CO2 emissions. Our World in Data.

19. Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography, 99, 102638.

20. Swilling, M. (2020). The Age of Sustainability: Just Transitions in a Complex World (Edition 1). 1st ed. United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis. DOI: 10.4324/9780429057823.

21. Tirado-Herrero, S., & Fuller, S. (2021). De-centering transitions: Low-carbon innovation from the peripheries. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41, 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.11.003

22. Waisbich, L. T., Roychoudhury, S., & Haug, S. (2021). Beyond the single story: ‘Global South’ polyphonies. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2086–2095. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1948832

23. Wang, X., & Lo, K. (2021). Just transition: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102291.

24. Williams, S., & Doyon, A. (2019). Justice in energy transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 144-153.

25. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683-2691.

Transitions towards net-zero GHG emissions entail system transformations unfolding simultaneously across multiple different – yet interconnected – socio-technical systems including electricity, heating, transportation, construction, agri-food, water, and industry (i.e. steel, petrochemicals, cement). Sustainability transitions occurring within one socio-technical system inevitably influence transition processes unfolding in adjacent systems, and vice-versa. This track will explore such multi-system dynamics (MSD) in sustainability transitions and their implications for theory and policy practice.

This track is motivated by:

(1) Growing pervasiveness of empirical multi-system phenomena that have direct and far-reaching impacts on e.g. the speed at which net-zero transitions occur, ensuing acceleration and upscaling efforts, the distribution of costs and benefits between systems and related burden-sharing efforts, or the reconfiguration of cross-sectoral value chains, among many other implications. For example, the electrification of transport, industry and heating systems depends on the transition of the electricity system and the large-scale diffusion of renewable electricity technologies [1]. Interactions between production and consumption and between different consumption systems (e.g. industry, heating, transport) will become more visible. Another example is the transition from fossil fuels to hydrogen use in multiple systems that will have repercussions for electricity, gas supply and the various industries that might be using hydrogen (e.g., steel, chemicals, transport ) [2, 3].

(2) Growing relevance of multi-system research in the field of sustainability transitions. Transition scholars are increasingly researching the interactions between multiple sociotechnical systems [4, 5] as well as dominant and durable common patterns of change across systems [6, 7]. Recent research has started to explore causal mechanisms and processes, emergence of new system connections and associated challenges, role of multi-system actors like system entanglers and actor strategies, governance, politics and policy in multi-system settings [2, 3, 8-11].

(3) The track is highly relevant from the perspective of the conference theme, i.e. tensions and trade-offs in structural changes for sustainability transitions. Research on MSD showed that increasing interdependencies across systems can reveal and aggravate institutional asymmetries, tensions, and conflicts in between-system interface domains [12-14] while acknowledging that it needs structural changes for sustainability transitions to progress.

(4) The track will contribute to the continued development of a network of scholars engaged in MSD research. Research network activities organized over the past years (workshops on multi-system interactions in Oslo (2023) and Gothenburg (2024), a corresponding open track at the IST conference (2024) have shown a high level of research interest, multiple relevant ongoing projects and a high need of continued dialogue on the topic. A thematic group on MSD within STRN has been formed.

Invited contributions:

We invite contributions that empirically explore MSD in transitions, provide new conceptual insights (here we encourage diversity in terms of approaches), and/or develop and apply new methodological approaches for studying MSD. Below is a non-exhausting list of topics:

· New concepts and frameworks to study MSD and critical reflections on the applicability of existing frameworks

· In-depth empirical studies of MSD phenomena such as sector-coupling, shifting institutional logics, emergence of meta-structures, multi-sector / generic technologies, transformation of value chains etc.

· Emerging synergies and conflicts between different socio-technical systems and their consequences

· Impacts of changing consumption practices (e.g., circular economy) on the emergence of novel inter-system dependencies and reconfiguration of multi-sectoral supply chains

· Policies and politics of MSD, including new multi-system governance challenges

· Actors and agency in MSD and their varying roles and influences in shaping transitions

· Geography of MSD and multi-system dynamics in various geographical contexts

Format: The track will be organized as an open track with several full paper sessions. Work-in-progress submissions will also be invited for a speed talk session. In addition to that, a special session will be organized as a part of the track. A special session will be organised, which can assume the form of a panel discussion encouraging a critical reflection on methodological approaches for exploring multi-system phenomena, or a dialogue session problematizing the use of existing vs new conceptual frameworks for understanding multi-system dynamics.

Track Convenors: Ksenia Onufrey, Meike Löhr, Allan Dahl Andersen, Ingrid Mignon, Laur Kanger, Tuukka Mäkitie, Sophie-Marie Ertelt, Daniel Rosenbloom, Thomas Magnusson

Corresponding convenor: Ksenia Onufrey (ksenia.onufrey@chalmers.se)

References:

1. Andersen, A.D., et al., Faster, broader, and deeper! Suggested directions for research on net-zero transitions. Oxford Open Energy, 2023.

2. Löhr, M. and C. Chlebna, Multi-system interactions in hydrogen-based sector coupling projects: System entanglers as key actors. Energy Research & Social Science, 2023. 105: p. 103282.

3. Mäkitie, T., et al., Complementarity formation mechanisms in technology value chains. Research Policy, 2022. 51(7): p. 104559.

4. Kanger, L., et al., Research frontiers for multi-system dynamics and deep transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2021. 41: p. 52-56.

5. Rosenbloom, D., Engaging with multi-system interactions in sustainability transitions: A comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2020.

6. Kanger, L. and J. Schot, Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical change. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2019. 32: p. 7-21.

7. Schot, J. and L. Kanger, Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Research Policy, 2018. 47(6): p. 1045-1059.

8. Löhr, M., J. Markard, and N. Ohlendorf, (Un) usual advocacy coalitions in a multi-system setting: the case of hydrogen in Germany. Policy Sciences, 2024. 57(3): p. 567-597.

9. Andersen, A.D. and F.W. Geels, Multi-system dynamics and the speed of net-zero transitions: Identifying causal processes related to technologies, actors, and institutions. Energy Research & Social Science, 2023. 102: p. 103178.

10. Ateş, A., K.S. Rogge, and K. Lovell, Governance in multi-system transitions: A new methodological approach for actor involvement in policy making processes. Energy Policy, 2024. 195: p. 114313.

11. Ohlendorf, N., M. Löhr, and J. Markard, Actors in multi-sector transitions – discourse analysis on hydrogen in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2023. 47: p. 100692.

12. Andersen, A.D., et al., Building multi-system nexuses in low-carbon transitions: Conflicts and asymmetric adjustments in Norwegian ferry electrification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023. 120(47): p. e2207746120.

13. Nykamp, H., A.D. Andersen, and F.W. Geels, Low-carbon electrification as a multi-system transition: a socio-technical analysis of Norwegian maritime transport, construction, and chemical sectors. Environmental Research Letters, 2023. 18(9): p. 094059.

14. Rosenbloom, D., A clash of socio-technical systems: Exploring actor interactions around electrification and electricity trade in unfolding low-carbon pathways for Ontario. Energy Research & Social Science, 2019. 49: p. 219-232.

While the world faces a potential slowdown of climate and other sustainability actions through old and new political leaders neglecting or even dismissing these societal challenges, the need for accelerating sustainability transitions remains paramount. However, the continued acceleration of the structural changes that are required to make our systems of production and consumption more sustainable – technological changes alongside organisational, behavioural, political, institutional and cultural changes – represent a formidable governance challenge. Clearly, the required transformative changes are not only highly complex but also increasingly resisted and deeply contested. This calls for greater attention to how policy makers (Borrás et al., 2024) and other actors (Wittmayer et al., 2017) – from business (Pinkse & Kolk, 2008) and society (Hölscher et al., 2019) to academia (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014) – are dealing with these challenges and the politics of deliberate acceleration (Roberts et al., 2018; Schmid et al., 2021). Such research can build on the literature on actors and agency in sustainability transitions (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016; Bögel & Upham, 2018). Yet, while policy and academic interest in acceleration is growing (Rosenbloom & Meadowcroft, 2022), our empirical understanding of how actors are navigating the cross-cutting challenges in the acceleration phase of transitions with its dual politics in different institutional contexts is underdeveloped (Markard et al., 2020; Rogge & Goedeking, 2024).

We argue that more actively pursuing survey methods and other neglected techniques to gather information about actors’ views, preferences and actions will contribute to unpacking the role of actors in accelerating (or decelerating) transitions and thereby promise to yield an improved understanding of transformative capacity. Such an improved understanding can be developed both through: a) qualitative approaches enhancing our knowledge of complex processes, expectations and perspectives, e.g. in the form of in-depth organisational case studies; and b) quantitative approaches enabling quick and large assessments of the characteristics, views and actions of large numbers of individuals and organisations, along with an examination of their drivers and barriers, e.g. by means of surveys. Ultimately, it is these actors that give rise to the transition patterns we observe.

However, only a few transition studies employ survey and other novel actor-focused methods to investigate actors in transitions (Scherrer et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2012), and even less so

are doing this in the context of acceleration (Ertelt et al., 2024). We argue there is much to be gained from more actively applying such underrepresented survey and other actor-focused methods to better understand actors in unfolding transition processes in general, and how they deal with the socio-political, socio-cultural and socio- economic challenges linked to the acceleration phase of transitions in particular. We further argue that in this endeavour much can be learned from other disciplines in general, and from survey research in particular: for example from the field of innovation studies when surveying business actors (Horbach & Rammer, 2025; Rogge & Schleich, 2018); from psychology when it comes to societal actors (Burghard & Scherrer, 2022; Helferich et al., 2024); from policy studies when surveying policy makers (Kattel et al., 2018; Rinscheid, 2020); and from science studies when surveying academics (Ferrari et al., 2023; Trencher et al., 2014).

Therefore, in this open track we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that adopt and adjust survey techniques and other actor-focused empirical methods from other disciplines to investigate actors in accelerating transitions. We are also open to mixed-method studies combining qualitative methods with quantitative investigations (e.g. organisational case-studies to further unpack survey results), as well as qualitative studies intended to help develop new quantitave methods (e.g. in the form of novel survey instruments) to better understand actors in accelerating transitions.

We welcome both full and short paper submissions that investigate the dilemmas, tensions, conflicts and struggles but also the opportunities and innovative solutions adopted by actors involved in driving the changes needed to accelerate transitions to meet climate and sustainability goals – but also the actions of actors blocking or slowing down transformative changes as well as strategies overcoming such barriers. We are particularly interested in empirical studies investigating the following four actor groups involved in accelerating sustainability transitions:

– Policy makers (e.g. accelerative capacities, administrative and policy innovation)

– Business actors (e.g. transformative innovation & investment strategies, lobbying)

– Societal actors (e.g. social innovation, political engagement, behavioural change)

– Research actors (e.g. mission activities, transdisciplinarity, engagement, outreach)

Ultimately, with this track we aim to advance our empirical understanding of actors in accelerating transitions and intend to jointly develop an outlook on how to make better use of survey and other so far less frequently used research methods in transition studies.

Format: The open track is intended to include multiple sessions organized around the central theme of surveying actors in unfolding transitions and their role for acceleration and a final dialogue session reflecting on the presented research and its implications, research gaps and next steps for the STRN community. 

Track convenors: Karoline Rogge,  Aline Scherrer, Adrian Rinscheid, Gregory Trencher, Rainer Kattel, Tabea Krauter

Corresponding convenor: Karoline Rogge (k.rogge@sussex.ac.uk)

References:

1. Avelino, F., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2016). Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: A multi-actor perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18(5), 628–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259
2. Bögel, P. M., & Upham, P. (2018). Role of psychology in sociotechnical transitions studies: Review in relation to consumption and technology acceptance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 28, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.002
3. Borrás, S., Haakonsson, S., Hendriksen, C., Gerli, F., Poulsen, R. T., Pallesen, T., Somavilla Croxatto, L., Kugelberg, S., & Larsen, H. (2024). The transformative capacity of public sector organisations in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 53, 100904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100904
4. Burghard, U., & Scherrer, A. (2022). Sharing vehicles or sharing rides – Psychological factors influencing the acceptance of carsharing and ridepooling in Germany. Energy Policy, 164, 112874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112874 M4 – Citavi
5. Ertelt, S. M., Rezvani, Z., Klézl, V., & Kask, J. (2024). From policy mix to pavement: Exploring individual actor-internal factors in zero-emission truck adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 471(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143427
6. Ferrari, E., Reyes-Carrasco, P. M., Barrón Ruíz, A., & Ruíz, C. (2023). Testing an instrument to assess the perception of climate change policies in universities: the case of Salamanca University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2021-0379
7. Helferich, M., Tröger, J., & Dütschke, E. (2024). The role of automobility engagement for car use and car use reduction intentions in Germany. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 106, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.08.002 M4 – Citavi
8. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Giezen, M. (2019). Opening up the transition arena: An analysis of (dis)empowerment of civil society actors in transition management in cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145(March 2015), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.004
9. Horbach, J., & Rammer, C. (2025). Climate change affectedness and innovation in firms. Research Policy, 54(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105122
10. Kattel, R., Cepilovs, A., Lember, V., & Tõnurist, P. (2018). Indicators for public sector innovations: Theoretical frameworks and practical applications. Halduskultuur, 19(1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.32994/ac.v19i1.208
11. Markard, J., Geels, F. W., & Raven, R. (2020). Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 15(8), 081001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9468
12. Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2008). International business and global climate change. In International Business and Global Climate Change. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887103
13. Rinscheid, A. (2020). Business power in noisy politics: An exploration based on discourse network analysis and survey data. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2580
14. Roberts, C., Geels, F. W., Lockwood, M., Newell, P., Schmitz, H., Turnheim, B., & Jordan, A. (2018). The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy Research and Social Science, 44(June), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.001
15. Rogge, K. S., & Goedeking, N. (2024). Challenges in accelerating net-zero transitions: Insights from transport electrification in Germany and California. Environmental Research Letters, 19(4), 044007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad2d84
16. Rogge, K. S., & Schleich, J. (2018). Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon innovation? A survey-based exploration of renewable power generation technologies in Germany. Research Policy, 47(9), 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.011
17. Rosenbloom, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2022). Accelerating Pathways to Net Zero: Governance Strategies from Transition Studies and the Transition Accelerator. Current Climate Change Reports, 8(4), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00185-7
18. Scherrer, A., Plötz, P., & Van Laerhoven, F. (2020). Power from above? Assessing actor- related barriers to the implementation of trolley truck technology in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.005
19. Schmid, N., Beaton, C., Kern, F., McCulloch, N., Sugathan, A., & Urpelainen, J. (2021). Elite vs. mass politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41(May), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.09.014
20. Schmidt, T. S., Schneider, M., Rogge, K. S., Schuetz, M. J. A., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2012). The effects of climate policy on the rate and direction of innovation: A survey of the EU ETS and the electricity sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.12.002
21. Trencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., & Yarime, M. (2014). University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 28(1), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009
22. Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F., & Loorbach, D. A. (2017). Actor roles in transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003 T4 – Insights from sociological perspectives M4 – Citavi
23. Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

While innovation has long been central to sustainability transitions research, recent years have seen a growing interest in the processes by which specific socio-technical arrangements come to an end. Although transitions research has always recognised these processes as an inevitable and important dimension of transitions, only recently has a focused research agenda emerged to better understand how and under what conditions regimes become destabilised, how lock-ins may be unlocked, and particular technologies or practices decline or are actively discontinued. Such processes are inevitably fraught with tensions and conflicts between actors who may resist, champion, or otherwise be affected by decline, between emergent change and transformative agendas, and between a need for stability and a requirement for discontinuing and disrupting unsustainable system configurations. Central to these emerging themes are questions of governance: to what extent, under what circumstances, how and by which means can processes of decline be governed?

This session seeks to engage with questions around the governance of destabilisation, discontinuation, and decline. We invite contributions that explicitly engage with and seek to better understand governance efforts to phase-out, ban, exnovate, unlearn, destabilise, discontinue, or any other flavour of active ‘unmaking’ in a range of socio-technical systems (such as food, energy, mobility, etc.) at different scales (e.g. local, regional, national, sectoral), at different leverage points (e.g. material, socio-cultural etc.,) and through different governance instruments (e.g.policy mixes, protest, divestment, occupation, etc.). Beyond limiting the scope to governance as conceived from a ‘cockpit’, we also invite contributions that investigate more emergent and decentralised forms of destabilising and discontinuing interventions, such as efforts from social movements, direct action, and other activities that occur before a formal decision to ‘phase’ something ‘out’ has been made.

As the emergence of a research agenda on the governance of destabilisation and discontinuation is still in its early stages, we invite a broad range of contributions that engage with this topic. To provide some orientation, we aim to make progress discussing the following questions, and may narrow the scope of the panel with regard to submissions:

Research scope and design

· What is the scope of research on destabilisation and discontinuation governance, e.g. in relation to innovation-driven change?

· Which methods and research designs are particularly suited for research on destabilisation and discontinuation governance, especially with a view to move beyond single- or small-n studies?

· How to address the geographical disparities of exposure to destabilisation and discontinuation, as well as the potential displacements of problems ensuing from destabilisation and discontinuation governance?

· How to constructively attend to the tension between macro-perspectives on discontinuation and the practices or ordinary work of discontinuation-in-action, dismantling, decommissioning, unlearning, or dealing with socio-technical heritage?

Governing destabilisation and discontinuation in practice

· How should interventions related to destabilisation and discontinuation purposefully and comprehensively be identified and categorised? Which governance instruments have been tried, which have been effective, and which have failed?

· Supervising, steering, governing, murmurating? What differences can we observe in decline beyond stark distinctions, like those between public/private, policy/politics, control/care? Which further notions are needed beyond implicit framings of destabilisation and discontinuation governance as ‘management’?

· How to negotiate tensions between the goals of governance to stabilise socio-technical systems, to manage and control transitions and destabilisation governance?

Vulnerability and justice

· Whose sustainability and whose voices count in designing efforts of destabilisation and discontinuation? What does it mean for such efforts to confront and reconfigure incumbent power dynamics?

· How to address the tension between the potential brutality of destabilisation and discontinuation outcomes (things and lives left behind) and the need for emancipatory politics of transformation?

· What do the backlash and rise of explicitly anti-transformative political projects mean for destablisation and discontinuation governance?

Broader implications for transitions research

· To what extent might a focus on processes of destabilisation and decline unveil underlying assumptions about societal change (e.g., heuristics and ideologies of growth, upscaling, progress, etc.) prevalent among transitions research?

Format: The track will have a hybrid format, starting with a combination of traditional presentations and speed talks of full or early-stage research papers, and continuing with a more interactive format on a selection of the questions above for conceptual clarification and consideration of priorities for future research. In this discussion, we particularly welcome contributions from those who engage with real-world processes of destabilisation and discontinuation governance in practice.

Track convenors: Tom Hawxwell, Leonard Frank, Laura van Oers, Bruno Turnheim, Peter Stegmaier, Karina Maldonado-Mariscal, Lea Fünfschilling, Kristina Bogner, Members of the STRN Thematic Group on Destabilisation, Decline and Phase-out (D2P)

Corresponding convenor: Tom Hawxwell (tom.hawxwell@hcu-hamburg.de)

Over the past ten years, debates and dialogues at the interface of human/economic geography and transition studies have grown into an epistemic community focusing on the ‘geography of sustainability transitions’ (GeoST). Transition challenges increasingly transcend conventional territorial boundaries (e.g., cities, regions, nations) as multi-scalar factors play a significant role in shaping transition dynamics and possibilities. At the same time, places differ in their structural preconditions and their capacities to engage in experiments with radically novel socio-technical configurations. Where and how transitions unfold therefore depends on dynamics that co-evolve between (and have impacts on) places in spatially highly complex and uneven ways. This open track offers a meeting place to discuss the most salient and promising conceptual interfaces between transition studies and geographical/spatial social sciences. Echoing the conference theme, we in particular welcome contributions that focus on the territorially embedded and multi-scalar tensions and trade-offs, as well as the spatially variegated dilemmas and conflicts that accompany sustainability transitions. We invite theoretical, conceptual and empirical contributions, as well as review papers, that reflect on the state of the art and outline promising avenues for GeoST research related to the conference theme and broader topics like:

• Tensions, conflicts, dilemmas and trade-offs between the scale, scope and speed of sustainability transitions and how they can be resolved in place-based and multi-scalar settings
• The interplay between context-specific structural conditions and agentic dynamics that shape sustainability transitions
• Novel conceptual frameworks and methodologies for addressing the multi-scalar interdependencies and tensions that constitute and shape innovation and socio-technical systems
• The role of place differentiations (e.g., capabilities, values, material, natural), place-making processes, and contested politics in producing spatially uneven sustainability transitions
• Re-conceptualizing the geographies of transitions in geographically remote, old industrial or structurally disadvantaged regions, as well as how innovation in low- and middle income contexts interacts with global transition dynamics
• Developing critical geographical perspectives on salient transition policy approaches like smart specialization, transition management, or mission-oriented / transformative innovation policies
• The spatially uneven and politically contested social, economic and environmental outcomes of sustainability transitions, in particular related to ‘just transitions’
• The geopolitics of sustainability transitions, e.g. related to sourcing raw materials for ‘green’ innovation, decarbonizing global value chains, or near-shoring strategies

Format: The session will be structured as an open conference session track, with contributions being grouped into thematically coherent paper sessions. If the conference schedule allows, we also envision creating a final reflection session, which enables overarching discussions on the most salient GeoST-related future research themes and on future activity areas of the GeoST thematic group.

Track convenors: The STRN thematic group on the Geography of Sustainability Transitions

Corresponding convenor: Christian Binz (christian.binz@eawag.ch)

The multiple ongoing crises that humanity faces – climate change, species extinction, political instability, growing inequality – require rapid and radical transformations. Given the concentration of population, resources and activities in urban areas, they are increasingly seen as critical sites to realise transformations towards sustainability (Bulkeley, 2013; McCormick et al. 2013; Elmqvist et al. 2019). There are many different ways in which transformations towards sustainable urban futures can be explored, ranging from ‘futures practices’ to more ‘experimental practices’ such as living labs and real-world labs. Futures practices or ‘techniques of futuring’ (Oomen et al., 2021) in the urban context can include institutionalised and top-down processes such as mapping, modelling and urban policy visions. But alternative, more participatory and creative futures practices are also on the rise such as speculative design, performative theatre, participatory visioning and literary fiction. The use of sustainability-oriented labs  has seen a marked increase in the governance and practical implementation of (sustainable) transition processes (Sengers et al., 2019; McCrory et al., 2020, 2022), including the dimensions of governing transitions, the role of civil society, but also industry and business actors, as well as questions of spaces, scales and places and reflections on transitions in practices, all of which are highlighted in the STRN research agenda. However, little is known about the transformative potential of these diverse futures and experimental practices, which we aim to explore in this Open Track. What are competing visions of urban futures and what are the underlying worldviews and values? How can futures practices and sustainability labs be conceptualised and categorised? Under what conditions can these practices catalyse urban transformations? Both theoretical/conceptual contributions and reflections on empirical cases or specific interventions are welcome. We welcome contributions from a wide range of disciplines, including (but not limited to) human/urban geography, arts, design, and (environmental) humanities, STS, political science, sociology, political ecology, architecture/urban planning, innovation and sustainability management and futures studies. Among the possible topics encompassed by the Open Track theme, we have preference for contributions covering a) urban nature and/or b) a focus on conceptual and methodological aspects related to labs and experiments in transitions research.

Session 1: Competing values and visions of urban futures

Critical perspectives, theoretical/conceptual contributions or empirical cases of values and visions related to urban future(s) in the context of urban planning and beyond. This could include for example conceptual contributions on how to approach urban visions, and values or imaginaries, empirical analysis of dominant visions or imaginaries or perspective papers on radical visions such as multispecies and post-growth futures.

Session 2: Practices of imagination

Exploring and comparing diverse techniques of imagining urban futures (Oomen et al., 2021), including but not limited to modelling, mapping, scenarios, speculative design (Edwards & Pettersen, 2023), fiction, participatory scenarios (Bina et al., 2024) and applied theatre (Sachs-Olsen et al., 2024). We envision a collection of speed talks (or paper presentations, depending on the number of submissions), followed by a collective mapping of futuring techniques. We particularly welcome contributions that focus on urban nature. 

Session 3: Conceptualizing sustainability labs and experiments 

Recent publications have provided typologies for sustainability-oriented labs in the context of sustainability transitions, yet further work is necessary in both delineating different types of labs, particularly the two broadly used concepts of Living Labs and Real World Labs (Reallabore), and in conceptualizing labs within Transitions frameworks. A second question relates to modes of research, ranging from “conventional” approaches – labs as an  (technological) innovation and change method to more transdisciplinary and transformative modes – labs as co-creative, inclusive transformation arenas (McCrory et al., 2022). Contributions related to one, or both questions are welcome.

Session 4: Practices of experimentation in labs

Real World and Living Labs emphasize effective management and process design throughout all phases of the experiment. Co-creation and co-design (Puerari et al., 2018) are key to both sustainability experiments, lab design, and lab governance. Management challenges include space, place, and actor interactions, involving local communities, stakeholder networks, researcher roles, ethics, and managing “research fatigue” or resistance. We invite contributions focusing both on design and governance topics and on reviewing and/or addressing management challenges.

Session 5: Impacts of sustainability labs and experimental practices

The impacts of sustainability labs on system transitions need further study, building on research on impact modes (von Wirth et al., 2019), typologies (Wanner et al., 2024), and scales (Bernert et al., 2024). With uncertain funding and increasing scrutiny towards R&D projects, clear concepts and transparent impact assessment tools could help to address criticism (Paskaleva and Cooper, 2021) and resistance. An additional venue of exploration could address strategies for improving impact, contrasting scaling-focused strategies with lateral, bricolage- respectively niche accumulation-based approaches.

Session 6: Artist and activist interventions to reimagine urban futures

Discussing examples of interventions that aim to ‘open-up’ or challenge dominant visions and imaginaries of urban futures, including (but not limited to) artist and activist interventions. We discuss their transformative potential and justice implications; how and for whom do they generate transformative change? We particularly welcome contributions from those working on the intersection of art, design, academia and activism on the topic of urban nature.

Session 7: Engaging local actors: co-creation and experimentation in Lisbon’s urban transformations

Exploring the role of local actors in co-creating and implementing experimental practices to foster urban transformation in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area and beyond. Contributions will include brief presentations from practitioners highlighting diverse approaches, such as living labs, participatory co-design processes, and real-world pilot projects. These presentations will be followed by a moderated dialogue to identify key enablers, barriers, and opportunities for local actors to foster transformative urban practices.

Format: The track will comprise paper presentations and speed talks, a panel discussion led by the team proposing the track as well as a dialogue session with local practitioners/actors from the Lisbon metropolitan area and beyond.

Track convenors: Anton Sentic, Lisette van Beek, Karoline Augenstein, Svenja Bickert-Appleby, TH Köln, Verena Hermelingmeier, Lia Patricio, Timo von Wirth, Andresa Lêdo Marques, Olivia Bina, Fiona Kinniburgh, Johannes Stripple, Holly Marriott Webb

Corresponding convenor: Anton Sentic (sent@zhaw.ch)

References:

1. Bernert, P., Weiser, A., Kampfmann, T., Lang, D.J., 2024. Impacts beyond experimentation ‐ Conceptualising emergent impacts from long-term real-world laboratory processes. GAIA – Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 33, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.33.S1.4
2. Bina, O., Baptista, M. D., Pereira, M. M., Inch, A., Falanga, R., Alegría, V., … & Verellen, T. (2024). Exploring desired urban futures: the transformative potential of a nature-based approach. Futures, 159, 103362.
3. Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the institute of British geographers, 38(3), 361-375.
4. Edwards, F., & Pettersen, I. N. (2023). Speculative design for envisioning more-than-human futures in desirable counter-cities. Cities, 142, 104553.
5. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., … & Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature sustainability, 2(4), 267-273.
6. McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of cleaner production, 50, 1-11.
7. McCrory, G., Holmén, J., Schäpke, N., Holmberg, J., 2022. Sustainability-oriented labs in transitions: An empirically grounded typology. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 43, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.03.004
8. McCrory, G., Schäpke, N., Holmén, J., Holmberg, J., 2020. Sustainability-oriented labs in real-world contexts: An exploratory review. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 123202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123202
9. Oomen, J., Hoffman, J., & Hajer, M. A. (2022). Techniques of futuring: On how imagined futures become socially performative. European Journal of Social Theory, 25(2), 252-270.
10. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., 2021. Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence. Technovation 106, 102311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102311
11. Puerari, E., de Koning, J., von Wirth, T., Karré, P., Mulder, I., Loorbach, D., 2018. Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs. Sustainability 10, 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061893
12. Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., 2019. Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 145, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031
13. van Waes, A., Nikolaeva, A., Raven, R., 2021. Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentation An analysis of four cycling innovation living labs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 172, 121004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121004
14. von Wirth, T., Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Coenen, L., 2019. Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 27, 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1504895
15. Wanner, M., Augenstein, K., Von Wirth, T., Lang, D.J., 2024. Impacts of urban real-world labs: Insights from a co-evaluation process informed by structuration theory in Wuppertal-Mirke. GAIA – Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 33, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.33.S1.15

This track examines the role of civil society, culture, and social movements in sustainability transitions. Civil society includes a diverse array of non-profit organizations, while social movements are often networks aiming to transform institutions. Culture comprises shared or contested beliefs, norms, and values, shaping practices and driving sustainability transitions. Sustainability transitions encompass cultural changes in legal frameworks, organizational practices, social structures, and the design of technologies and infrastructures (Köhler et al., 2019).

Civil society organizations (CSOs) and social movements influence transitions in several ways. They can shape public support, advocate for fair policies, and challenge dominant norms to promote alternative visions of sustainability. They also provide protective spaces for grassroots innovations like community energy projects and urban farming. However, these efforts often encounter conflicts with entrenched regime actors who resist change or co-opt innovations to reinforce existing systems.

Recent research reveals significant tensions and complexities in how CSO and social movements contribute to sustainability transitions (Geels, 2024). Grassroots innovations, for example, often struggle to scale due to reliance on voluntary efforts, context-specific designs, and institutional barriers. Transformative social innovations, including eco-villages and degrowth initiatives, hold promise but face persistent challenges in achieving widespread diffusion. Furthermore, as the transition progresses, public debates and cultural discourses surrounding sustainability become loci of intensifying framing struggles, where actors compete to shape public attitudes and policy responses. Positive discourses can foster acceptance of niche innovations, while negative discourses may destabilize existing regimes. Issue lifecycles add another layer of complexity, as public attention to sustainability challenges fluctuates over time, often driven by trigger events (e.g., political shifts), activism, and media focus.

To advance the discussion, proposals could address (but not limit to) the following topics:

• Investigating the conditions under which grassroots and social movements/innovations can scale up and diffuse more widely;
• Understanding the role of civil society actors in driving or hindering sustainability transitions.
• Exploring how CSOs and social movements influence broader cultural shifts necessary for sustainability transitions.

References:

1. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 31, 1-32.
2. Geels, F. W. (2024). Advanced introduction to sustainability transitions. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Open submissions invite contributions across diverse themes that reflect the interests of the entire STRN community, including emerging perspectives. These submissions will be organized into thematic sessions by the conference organizers.

a. Capitalism in Sustainability Transitions Research
        Gregor Kungl (gregor.kungl@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de)

b. China’s Regional and Global Interactions in Green Transitions
        Hao Tan (hao.tan@nottingham.edu.cn)

c. Tensions and Trade-offs in Green Regional Transitions
        Suyash Jolly (suyashjolly611@gmail.com)

d. Re-thinking Digitalization and Sustainability Transitions: Exploring Synergies, Tensions and Trade-offs
        Darcy Parks (darcy.parks@liu.se)

e. Transdisciplinarity in and for Sustainability Transitions
        Eduardo Urias (eduardo.munizpereiraurias@vu.nl)

f. Levering Sustainability Transitions to Address Biodiversity Challenges
        Matias Ramirez (mr230@sussex.ac.uk)

g. Network Session on Tipping Points and Pathways for Accelerating Sustainability Transitions (TiP_fAST)
        Kejia Yang (kejia.yang@tik.uio.no)

h. Learning in and Through Experimentation for Urban Transformative Capacities: Prospects, Ambivalences and Tensions
        Franziska Ehnert (f.ehnert@ioer.de)

i. Just Transitions in Practice: Methods, Strategies and Lessons Learned
        Bipashyee Ghosh (bipashyee.ghosh@ucl.ac.uk)

j. Towards Net Zero in a Heterogeneous World: Understanding the Unequal Nature and Speed of Transformation
        Jessica Jewell (jewell@chalmers.se)

k. Futures of Livestock, Meat and Dairy: Transitions, Foresight and Visions
        Raphaël Stephens (raphael.stephens@unilasalle.fr)

l. The “Urban” in Sustainability Transitions: From the Blackboxed City to a Relational Urban Systems Perspective
        Emilia Smeds (emisme@kth.se)

m. Racing to Climate Justice: Exploring the Temporalities and Emotional Responses to Just Sustainability Transformations
        Nepantlera G. Amaris (n.joshi@ioer.de)

n. Power and Prefiguration in Just Sustainability Transitions – A Collaborative Dialogue
        Flor Avelino (f.r.avelino@uu.nl)

o. Refusing Energy Transitions
        Peter Stegmaier (p.stegmaier@utwente.nl)

p. Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Transition: Opportunities and Challenges

       Ricardo Paes Mamede (ricardo.mamede@iscte-iul.pt)

q. Sustainability Transitions Challenges and Financial Innovation

       Gianfranco Gianfrante (gianfranco.gianfrate@edhec.edu)

r. Industrial Policy for Sustainability Transition

       Cristina Sousa (cristina.sousa@iscte-iul.pt)

s. The Role of the Arts in Sustainability Transitions
        Steve Williams (stephengarywilliams@gmail.com)

For more details please consult here the full description of the special sessions.