4.8 Article

How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche-regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene

期刊

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 225-237

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.004

关键词

Sustainability transitions; Niche regime interaction; Institutional logics; Boundary spanning; Biomethane; Gas network

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [434-09-242]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The promotion of renewable energy production requires the cooperation of previously unrelated actors. In the Netherlands, a government subsidy pushes biomethane producers into a relationship with operators of the gas network. However, this cooperation proved to be very difficult. This research analyzes the problematic interaction between producers and network operators in the case of biomethane injection in the Dutch natural gas grid. We draw on the concept of 'institutional logics' to improve our understanding of this interaction and to identify divergent practices and belief systems. This research contributes to the multilevel perspective on socio-technical transitions, in particular to insights into the interaction between the biomethane niche and gas regime. Based on interviews and secondary data sources we find diverging logics for biomethane producers and network operators. The differences regarding the goals pursued, decisionmaking style, and the scale of operations hamper productive cooperation. We also observe that 'boundary spanning' individuals step in to increase mutual understanding and to forge productive working relationships. However, the existing logics leave very little room for maneuvering, given the embeddedness and stability of logics in thinking, acting, and physical infrastructure. Mismatching institutional logics form a serious hurdle for successful biomethane injection, and thus hinder the transition towards more renewable energy production. (c) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据