4.8 Article

Empowering sustainable niches: Comparing UK and Dutch offshore wind developments

期刊

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 344-355

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.004

关键词

Sustainability transitions; Empowering; Niches; Technology politics; Protective space; Offshore wind energy

资金

  1. UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  2. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [ES/H022864/1]
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/H022864/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. ESRC [ES/H022864/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Offshore wind has been positioned as a promising technology that could play a major role in moving towards more sustainable energy systems, but deployment varies significantly across countries. This article aims to explain the contrast between the boom in the UK versus stagnation in The Netherlands, by analysing the niche empowerment dynamics building on Smith and Raven's (2012) distinction between 'fit and conform' and 'stretch and transform' strategies. Analysis focuses on the actor networks and the narratives they use to enrol support for the deployment of the technology. We conclude that because the narratives mobilised are quite similar in both cases, an explanation must lie with the actors. We argue that the UK's relative success is partly the result of the presence of a proactive 'system builder' in the form of the Crown Estate which plays a central role in powerful public-private actor networks around offshore wind. We also conclude that the Smith and Raven 'protected space' framework fails to capture how different national institutional settings shape the possibilities for empowering work of technology advocates as our analysis shows that despite the highly international nature of the offshore wind sector, attempts by multi-national companies result in different outcomes in different countries. (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