Martinus Franciscus Mohandas van Uden, Johannes Wilhelmus Franciscus Wamelink, Ellen Maria van Bueren, Erwin Wilhelmus Theodurus Martinus Heurkens
{"title":"Crossovers between Sustainability Transitions Research and Social Practice Theory: A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"Martinus Franciscus Mohandas van Uden, Johannes Wilhelmus Franciscus Wamelink, Ellen Maria van Bueren, Erwin Wilhelmus Theodurus Martinus Heurkens","doi":"10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Researchers employ many different approaches to study transitions towards more sustainable futures, of which Sustainability Transitions Research and Social Practice Theory are often used. These approaches offer complementary concepts that are helpful to analyse, explain, forecast, and drive sustainability transitions, e.g. heuristics on changing institutions (Sustainability Transitions Research) or dynamics to change behaviour through practice development (Social Practice Theory). However, despite first attempts, it remains unclear how the approaches can be used together. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to expose crossover frameworks in which these approaches are used together, elaborating on conditions that make this possible, and the strengths and weaknesses of specific crossover frameworks. A systematic literature review has been conducted, investigating the potentials and the limitations for crossovers between Social Practice Theory and Sustainability Transitions Research by analysing the approaches according to the different ontologies and theories and then analysing frameworks that have been created so far. This research elaborates on six crossover frameworks that have been created that all have diverse strengths, such as the ability to conceptualize early transitional changes or finding points of resistance in transitions. All the found crossover frameworks made use of either the multilevel perspective or transition management. Other frameworks of transition research have not been found. This research shows that there has been surprisingly little research to crossover frameworks that incorporate an element of time. The exposition following from this study is interesting for researchers and policymakers working on sustainability transitions and sets an agenda for further framework development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100255,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Production Letters","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100083"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Production Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666791624000290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Researchers employ many different approaches to study transitions towards more sustainable futures, of which Sustainability Transitions Research and Social Practice Theory are often used. These approaches offer complementary concepts that are helpful to analyse, explain, forecast, and drive sustainability transitions, e.g. heuristics on changing institutions (Sustainability Transitions Research) or dynamics to change behaviour through practice development (Social Practice Theory). However, despite first attempts, it remains unclear how the approaches can be used together. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to expose crossover frameworks in which these approaches are used together, elaborating on conditions that make this possible, and the strengths and weaknesses of specific crossover frameworks. A systematic literature review has been conducted, investigating the potentials and the limitations for crossovers between Social Practice Theory and Sustainability Transitions Research by analysing the approaches according to the different ontologies and theories and then analysing frameworks that have been created so far. This research elaborates on six crossover frameworks that have been created that all have diverse strengths, such as the ability to conceptualize early transitional changes or finding points of resistance in transitions. All the found crossover frameworks made use of either the multilevel perspective or transition management. Other frameworks of transition research have not been found. This research shows that there has been surprisingly little research to crossover frameworks that incorporate an element of time. The exposition following from this study is interesting for researchers and policymakers working on sustainability transitions and sets an agenda for further framework development.