1

Paper for SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference 11-13 Sept 2006 Brighton UK

Innovation for sustainability:

The case of sustainable transportation

Philip J. Vergragt,
Tellus Institute, Boston, MA, USA
[email protected]
and
MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA
[email protected]

and

Halina Szejnwald Brown

Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA
[email protected]
 2

Abstract

Global warming and energy security are the main drivers for innovation towards
alternative and sustainable energy solutions. The prevailing notion is that eventually
technological innovations will solve the problem. However, scenario studies point out
that deep change processes in institutions, life styles, and values will be necessary in
addition to technological innovations. Moreover, there are some persistent problems with
technological innovation itself:
• In the case of energy for transportation, there is no consensus about which
technologies to choose and how to select them. Picking winners is not a good
idea, but keeping options open is neither. There seems to be a consensus that, in
the long term, hydrogen fuel cells, battery electric vehicles, or biofuels are the
only available sustainable options. It is not clear how and when to choose,
depending on long-term cost-benefits and risk assessments, on public acceptance,
and on the urgency.
• Technological innovations are mainly driven by large business interests and by
large government programs. After many years of discussion, supply side policies
still dominate demand-side approaches. Thinking from the perspective of
sustainability is even less developed. Transportation is again a case here. From the
perspective of sustainability, the automobile is a suboptimal solution to individual
mobility needs.
In this paper we explore both theoretically and practically some alternative ways of
thinking about how to connect technological innovation to sustainability. First of all, we
think that small-scale experimentation including heterogeneous actors will help to
generate deep learning processes, which are relevant for transitions to sustainability. In
earlier papers we have coined the concept of BSTEs, “Bounded Socio-Technical
Experiments” as situations in which deep learning could be generated and diffused into
wider society.
Second, we think that visioning exercises with heterogeneous stakeholders will help
to create shared future visions for sustainable societies that are powerful enough to guide
BSTE processes, and eventually could influence policy making aimed at the long term. In
the Dutch Sustainable Technological Development program in the 1990s, and in the
SusHouse project we have showed the viability of such an approach. Third, we think that
back-casting from future visions, in combination with BSTEs, could generate roadmaps
for technology development and policy development that will guide and direct individual
innovation efforts. In the Netherlands backcasting is currently being investigated as to its
effectiveness in generating long-term changes.
As examples we will describe two cases: hydrogen fuel cells for transportation, and
the Boston Scenarios Project. In the first case, we lay out the options and uncertainties,
and explore the possibilities for a broad societal debate in addition to small-scale
experiments, in order to develop a clear broadly-endorsed solution direction. In the latter
project, a combination of visioning, BSTEs, and backcasting is being developed in order
to generate “deep change” alternatives for the “Business As Usual” scenario for the
Boston area. For transportation, “Deep Change” goes beyond fuel cell solutions and
 3

includes land-use planning, rezoning, education, and experimentation and learning in

multi-stakeholder processes, as well as walking, biking, and public transit
The role of governments in each of these examples remains contested. Ideally,
governments should act as trustees for future generations and for fostering sustainability,
and provide strong guidance for policies. In the present situation of short-termism, at
least in the USA, civil society and forward-looking entrepreneurs may have to take the
lead to help governments to redefine their roles.
For the development of innovation theories, the paper will reflect on how these
approaches could fit in or stretch existing innovation theories.

1. Introduction: challenges for sustainable innovation

Technological innovation and diffusion play a central role in the pursuit of

environmentally sustainable development, along with changes in consumption patterns.
Often it is assumed that radical [Abernathy et al, 1985] or disruptive [Christensen, 1997]
innovations are necessary for sustainable development.
There are however some environmental problems that are so complex that that
technological innovation alone is unlikely to be able to address them successfully. The
most debated is climate change by human-activity related CO2. The increasing global
population and the increasing standards of living around the globe (for the poor a
requirement for sustainability), as well as the development of new products and services
by technological innovations, cause CO2 emissions to increase to levels that are highly
unsustainable, especially for climate stabilization.
In addition to climate change issues, increasing global energy consumption causes
threats to energy security. We are far from reaching a consensus on how to address these
issues in a globally integrated and sustainable way. In the 1990s most scholars on
sustainable innovation assumed that dematerialization combined with energy efficiency
could help to decouple energy consumption from economic growth. Indeed some
progress has been made: especially industries using Life Cycle Assessment and Life
Cycle Costing focused on dematerialization of products, reducing packaging, and
reducing energy intensity of appliances. However, increase of personal consumption
following more wealthy life styles, rebound effects, new electric appliances especially in
ICT, and the increasing numbers of consumers world-wide have more than annihilated
this progress
The most debated technological options are energy conservation and energy
efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, biomass, and carbon capture and storage.
Energy conservation and efficiency efforts draw on such technologies as insulation of
houses, heat exchangers, heat and cold storage, heat pumps, cogeneration and more
efficient internal combustion motors, as well as life-style changes. Renewable energy is
widely accepted as the solution of the future, however is hampered by high costs,
NIMBY battles especially on wind energy, and lack of incentives to innovate and to
reach the mass markets. Nuclear energy is back on the agenda, but is still highly
contested because of lack of long-term solutions for radioactive waste storage. Biomass
and biofuels are promising, and embraced by the EU and by the US government, but at
this stage they still take a lot of energy to produce, and require large tracks of land.
 4

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a newly emerging technology that promises to store
CO2 deeply underground for a long time, but may face in the future similar challenges
for public acceptance as nuclear and wind energy (NIMBY and public trust) [Stephens et
al, 2005].
In the case of personal transportation the issues of energy generation take on
additional dimensions because of the need for on-board storage and possibly on-board
generation. Among the most promising technologies is electric propulsion either by
batteries or by fuel cells. Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) have failed on the market
several times [Van den Hoed et al, 2006; Orsato. 2006], but improvements in battery
technology and other forms of energy storage (flywheels, compressed air) hold some
hope. Of course electric traction requires the sustainable supply of large amounts of
electricity, which brings us back to the problems of the potential of renewables. Fuels
cells could be another solution; however hydrogen in PEMC is highly discussed because
of the high inefficiencies of producing and using hydrogen [Weiss et al, 2000, 2003;
Vergragt 2006], and the possibility of other fuels for fuel cells (methanol) or other types
of fuel cells (for example, solid oxide, SOFC).
Because of the systemic character of many of the challenges and of the potential
solutions it is not enough to address single technological innovations and diffusions.
Instead, an entire complex of technologies and their interlinkages needs to be addressed.
What makes things worse is that the recent trend toward deregulation has made many
governments less able to influence technological innovations than before. Additionally, a
large-scale and long-term transition such as this involves numerous actors. Many of them
have a stake in the existing situation and in current technologies, which raises the
question of technological and institutional lock-ins.
One way out of this vicious cycle is to infuse the present socio-technical system of
individual mobility with a greater capacity to reframe problems, to synthesize the
accumulated cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional knowledge, and to set and
articulate alternative policies and technology trajectories. In part 2 of this paper we argue
that a combination of visioning, backcasting and small-scale experimentation are
promising approaches to purse these objectives. Drawing on the theories of learning we
make a case that these approaches facilitate systemic change by way of increasing higher
order learning on a scale of individuals, groups, and the society. Part 3 discusses these
ideas in more detail, using the case of hydrogen fuel cells for transportation. Part 4
considers the case of transportation through in the context of a sustainable city, using
Boston as an example. In part 5 we build on the two cases to discuss the importance of
the new approaches for innovation studies in general and for innovation for sustainability
in particular.

2. Visioning, backcasting, small-scale experimentation, and higher order

learning

One of the turning points in framing the prominent role of technological innovation in
the sustainability debate was the shift, during the 1990s, from local and short-term
thinking to global and long-term time horizons. Related to that was the emergence of the
concept of “Factor 20”. Drawing on the IPAT equation [Ehrlich et al, 1971], the Dutch
Sustainable Technological Development (STD) program introduced the “factor 20”
 5

challenge, meaning that for each unit of need fulfillment (viz. transportation of 1 person 1
km), the intensity of energy and materials consumption would need to be reduced twenty-
fold [Vergragt et al, 1993, 1994; Weaver et al, 2000]. The STD program recognized that
the existing environmental policies, focused on end-of pipe pollution prevention and
process and product innovation, were inadequate for the task. Instead, system innovation
would be necessary, which would entail not only technological innovations, but also
changes in “culture” and “structure”, meaning institutions, life styles, and consumption
patterns. Such structural changes would also mean changes in the economic and political
structures.
The Dutch STD program introduced three innovative ideas for generating a
momentum and hopefully a trajectory towards the needed system innovation: visioning,
back-casting, and illustrative processes. ‘Visioning’ is a development of a future vision of
sustainable function fulfillment that would be shared by all relevant stakeholders in the
supply and demand chain, from production to consumption. For this, workshops were
organized in which representatives of the supply chain and consumers brainstormed
about “factor 20” solutions. In the STD program the emphasis was still on the
development of radical or disruptive technologies. Later on, in the EU-funded
“SusHouse” project the emphasis shifted toward changing consumption patterns; the
“Sustainable Household” was a reference point and as a place where “sustainable
consumption” would be located [Vergragt et al, 2001; Green et al, 2002].
When used appropriately, visions can be powerful devices for orienting and
structuring actions and behaviors. They have the power to inspire social actors to
investigate and test alternatives-- from technology to behaviour to culture and
institutions. Shared visions may unify competing or warring interests by creating a shared
framing of a situation. According to Grin and Grunwald “…one way to shape socio-
technological systems is through the visions that guide their development… the
assumption is that these visions exist already in most societal sectors, that these visions
tend to reproduce the ways in which these sectors have developed hitherto, and that a
critical discussion of these visions is a prerequisite for changing the course of
development” [Grin et al, 2000].
Visioning can create trend-breaching scenarios for desirable (in contrast to possible)
futures. For instance, sustainability visions of the future might imply breeches of trend
from the present developments. These breaches may be technological (radical or
disruptive innovations), but more often they are social and cultural (shifts in values from
individualistic to communal, from increasing wealth to increasing well-being, from
owning to sharing). In the SusHouse project (Vergragt et al, 2001, Green et al. 2002)
creativity workshops with stakeholders have been used to create the elements of
normative future visions that depart markedly from presently dominant values in society.
In a related approach, Berkhout et al (2002) developed socio-economic scenarios in
relation to climate change and conceptualized them as “learning machines” meaning
“…the capacity to bind together the mental maps of diverse communities and to enable
them to imagine alternative futures collaboratively.”
“Backcasting” is a process whereby the construction of a future vision or normative
scenario is followed by looking back in time and creating a strategy or action plan for
proceeding from the present towards that desired future [Vergragt, 2005, Quist et al,
2006]. The origin of backcasting goes back to Amory Lovins, who proposed ‘energy
 6

backcasting’ as an alternative planning technique for electricity supply and demand in the
1970s [Robinson, 1982, Anderson, 2001]. A similar approach has been applied in the
“Great Transition” scenario by the Tellus Institute. Based on the earlier work by the
Global Scenario Group (GSG), Raskin et al. [2003] visualized a “Great Transition”
towards a global sustainable society towards the end of the 21st century, and a possible
pathway how to reach that. Earlier scenario studies had indicated that most trend-
following scenarios would lead to unsustainable situations like “Fortress World” or
“Barbarization.” In contrast to the STD program, Tellus Institute sees the dynamics of
change coming from civil society rather than from technological innovation or from
government policies.
“Illustrative processes” were examples of socio-technical innovations that have the
potential to achieve a factor 20 if diffused on a large scale: for instance, Novel Protein
Foods was based on the idea that meat could be produced outside an animal with an
enormous environmental efficiency [Weaver et al, 2000]. This would entail a massive
restructuring of the food, and especially the meat, industry. Obviously cultural and
structural factors would play an great role here; restructuring of the food industry and
rethinking the need for “meat” by consumers are big challenges.
The STD program was ambiguous about the role of illustrative processes. On the one
hand, they were seen as loci for experimentation and learning; on the other hand they
were seen as the first steps in a possible transition to a final state. There is also a tension
between achieving factor 20 by deep cultural, structural, and technological changes (or
system innovations or transitions), and carrying them out by presently powerful economic
actors with a deep stake in the present culture and structure. The same tensions can be
seen in the present “transition management” thinking with respect to small-scale
initiatives in niches [Rotmans et al, 2001, Kemp et al, 2005].
Related to illustrative processes is the concept of “Bounded Socio-Technical
Experiment” (BSTE), which we introduced in recent years [Brown et al, 2003, 2004,
2006]. The key role of such experiments is to induce higher order learning among the
participants, with the idea that such learning is a fundamental precondition for achieving
deep changes in technology, culture, and institutions. The term BSTE denotes “….an
attempt to introduce a new technology or service on a scale bounded in space and
time….. it is a collective endeavor, carried out by a coalition of diverse participants.
There is a cognitive component to BSTE in that at least some of the participants, and
definitively the analyst, explicitly recognize the effort to be an experiment, in which
learning by doing, trying out new strategies and new technological solutions, and
continuous course correction, are standard features”.
A BSTE is driven by a long-term and large-scale vision of advancing the society’s
sustainability agenda. Its goal is to try out innovative approaches for solving larger
societal problems of unsustainable technologies and services. It can provide an
opportunity for testing the feasibility of a new technology or service before it is ready to
enter the open market. A successful experiment creates a functioning, socially embedded
new configuration of technology or service, which serves as a starting point for diffusion.
A less obvious, but crucially important, measure of its success is the occurrence of higher
order learning among its participants, even in the absence of wide replication.
We built on the work of Grin and van de Graaf [1996a,b] to conceptualize learning
processes in BSTEs. These authors applied Fischer’s [1995] and Schön et al’s [1983,
 7

1994] framework of multilevel discourse to examine the learning processes occurring

during constructive (or interactive) technology assessment. The participants in BSTE
bring with them diverse perspectives and competencies, which in turn affect the meaning
they attach to the project at hand and the ways in which they seek to contribute to the
project and its outcome. We group these differences into four levels (closely following
Grin and Van de Graaf [1996 a,b]):
1. Problem solving according to pre-determined objectives;
2. Problem definition with regard to the particular technology-societal problem
coupling;
3. Dominant interpretive frames
4. Worldview
Worldview denotes deeply held values with regard to the preferred social order,
including such issues as justice, fairness, equality, freedom, and private versus public
good. Discourse at this level rarely occurs, is unlikely to produce changes, and is most
dangerous for a collaborative project. By interpretive frame we mean the approaches to
making sense of observations and to identifying the most salient characteristics of a
particular situation. It is strongly linked to institutional and professional affiliations of its
holder, his/her self-interest, as well as the worldview. Problem definition denotes
specifying the task at hand or problem to be solved. Participants do so by examining the
features of a particular situation through the lens of their respective interpretive frames
and worldviews. Problem solving entails applying tools that the participant seems fit for
addressing a previously defined problem. The discourse at this level proceeds primarily
among members of the same profession or community of practice. This is first order
learning.
The most intense interactions occur in BSTEs on the second and third levels. This is
where the differences in problem definition, motivations for engaging in the project,
individual interests and organizational missions, and perspectives on the particular
technology become most clearly exposed and are most likely to confront each other.
Generally, changes in problem definition are more likely than changes in interpretive
frames. This is higher order learning.
Previously, we examined the cases of technological innovation in personal mobility
[Brown et al, 2003, 2004] and in high performance building design through the lens of
BSTE [Brown et al, 2006], focusing on mapping the learning processes among the
participants. We also highlighted the potential contribution of this type of learning to
changing professional norms and standards, and to catalyze diffusions of learning on a
scale of a society. The latter needs further empirical study.

3. Hydrogen fuel cells for transportation

No shared future vision of sustainable transportation has yet emerged. Those authors
who focus on the technological side of the equation agree that car propulsion of the future
would be either by hydrogen fuel cells, batteries, biofuel, or a combination of those.
Others claim that life style changes, and less dependence on individual car-based
mobility, are necessary.
In the recent years some writers of popular science promoted the visions of a
“hydrogen society” [Hoffman, 2000, Rifkin, 2002]. Bush has adapted this vision, and
 8

endorses research in hydrogen fuel cells, both in the public and private sectors [DOE
2992, 2003, 2004]. Others have criticized this vision as hype [Romm, 2006], as
summarized in a recent paper by one of us [Vergragt, 2006]. There are other visions of a
hydrogen society and research into pathways how to get there [Eames et al 2005, 2006].
Although a shared vision on a future sustainable transportation system has not
emerged so far, there has been a lot of learning among stakeholders concerning the
hydrogen fuel cell option for car transportation. Some of the issues are summed up below
[Vergragt, 2006]:

-Hydrogen is not a ‘source of energy’ but not more or less than a carrier for storage and transport
of energy
-Sustainable hydrogen needs to be generated by means of renewables or by ‘clean fossil’ fuels
with carbon capture and storage (CCS); this may become the key technology to generate
sustainable hydrogen for transportation. [Stephens et al, 2005]
-Not enough renewables may be available, and a competition with food production is an issue.
-The use of renewable energy to replace coal in power plants reduces CO2 emissions with a
factor 2-3 more than by generating hydrogen for transportation. [Green et al, 2006; Ramesohl et
al, 2006]
-For the short term, hydrogen for transportation thus is not a sustainable option. It may be for the
long term (beyond 50-100 years) [Turton 2006, Bailie et al, 2006]
-Many technological innovations are necessary to provide hydrogen at competitive levels and for
enough radius for car transportation
-According to Tellus Institute, energy efficiency and conservation are better options than
hydrogen to achieve sustainability [Bailie et al, 2006]
-For personal transport, other options than the car are available

In sum, there has been considerable higher order learning around hydrogen. In
order to diffuse this learning, a stakeholder dialogue may be helpful [Vergragt, 2006].

4. Planning for a sustainable city: the case of Boston

In a project supported by the U.S. EPA National Center for Environmental

Research (2005-2007) Tellus Institute has been developing scenarios aimed at reaching
sustainability goals for the greater Boston area by 2050 [Vergragt et al, 2006;
www.bostonscenarios.org ]. They have developed three sets of scenarios: 1) Business As
Usual, without great surprises; 2) Policy Reform—with credible policy incentives for the
short term); and 3) Deep Change—which, in addition to changes in technology and
policy, assumes changes in behavior, lifestyles, and culture to address the deep shifts
required to achieve a sustainable future that recognizes the Boston region’s global
responsibilities.
These scenarios comprise both a vision and a pathway for getting there. They
have qualitative and quantitative elements. First, they develop narratives that describe
these three alternative futures in terms of environmental, economic, and social drivers.
 9

From these narratives, indicators are derived representing the key issues of concern. The
project is using a computer-based tool called PoleStar to develop the quantitative
scenarios. The PoleStar system is a flexible and easy-to-use decision support tool for
sustainability studies at the local, regional, national, or global levels. A broad range of
issues and sectors are integrated in the scenarios including demographics, employment
and income, economic activity, industry, land use, transportation, water quantity and
quality, air quality, solid waste, energy production and use, agriculture, etc.
Tellus expects to find that under both the ‘Business As Usual’ and ‘Policy
Reform’ scenarios, the region’s activities are not sustainable from a global perspective.
Such scenarios are likely to show resource depletion, environmental degradation, and
failure to live within a fair CO2 budget or ecological footprint. Thus, the ‘Deep Change’
scenario will reflect a deeper commitment to meeting the region’s global responsibilities
and a preventative approach to environmental degradation and climate change. This will
be constructed as a backcast from a desired future in 2050, identifying plausible
development pathways for getting there, including the choices and actions for shaping a
sustainable future. Apart from the “push” factors, exemplified by the threats of global
warming and sea level rise, there will also be “pull” factors incorporated in the scenarios,
which may make them attractive for future citizens, like more livable communities, the
absence or minimization of sprawl, and an overall improved quality of life (as indicated
by greater available leisure time, for instance).

Vision for Sustainable Greater Boston 2050

Transportation and Land Use
In the year 2050, the Boston metropolitan region has become a leading cultural and economic
capital, famous for its environmental leadership. New land-use and transport practices are the
great hallmarks of this new beacon of sustainability. Consistent with the MA Climate Action Plan
and the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Action Plan, a reduction
of GHG emissions from transportation in the region have been reduced by up to 80% since 2000.

Citizens are predominantly living and working near public transportation hubs. Public
transportation is attractive because of high speed and frequency, high comfort, and convenient
payment. This has reversed the decline in transit use the region experienced in the first few years
of the century. Public transportation use is now routinely encouraged by employers who offer free
or reduced cost transit passes as a benefit, and a high fraction of offices and workplaces being
situated near transportation hubs. Easy access to transit stations is provided by an extensive
MBTA1 car-sharing program, as well as pick-up shuttle services using electric vehicles,
underground parking spaces near stations, and high quality provisions for bicycle storage.

Individual car use has decreased as alternative public and private transportation options have
become so convenient. Transit includes a number of modes: “bus rapid transit,” rail, light rail,
car-sharing, taxis, and ferry services. Walking, cycling, shared taxis, and high-speed transit have
become easy, attractive, quick, comfortable, and less expensive than driving and parking,
especially in Boston proper and the inner core communities. All public fleets and most private
cars are hybrids or run on hydrogen that is produced from renewables or natural gas. Significant
investments have been made in carbon sequestration projects within the region and outside it to
reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions considerably.

1
Metropolitan Bay Area Transportation
 10

A large part of downtown Boston is closed for individual cars except certain categories (high-
occupancy, all-electric or hydrogen vehicles; electric multi-occupancy taxis). In this area public
transit is free; bicycle facilities are readily available (lanes, storing, zip-car-like renting system);
and the long-needed rail link between North and South Stations is in place.

From an institutional perspective, public-private partnerships have realized innovative solutions

by experimenting with new technologies. By including universities and technical institutes in
research and development, new private high-tech enterprises developing innovative mobility
solutions are thriving. Advanced information and communications technology (ICT) is widely
used for road pricing, congestion pricing, fare payment, trip reservation, information and
communication services, tele-working and tele-shopping, combining trips, and vehicles sharing.
These organizations and businesses are an important component of a thriving regional economy.
(source: www.bostonscenarios.org

The scenario development process includes stakeholder consultations and close

coordination with an ongoing regional planning effort called MetroFuture, a project led
by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the Boston area’s regional planning
agency [MAPC 2004]. By linking the Tellus’ scenario results with MetroFuture’s broad
stakeholder process —involving government, business, and civil society from around the
region — other local and state policy initiatives, and grassroots citizens’ efforts, they will
receive broad consideration.
This project is an example of a visioning exercise, carried out mostly in-house by
Tellus, but with regular consultations of stakeholders in the region by means of
workshops and small consultation meetings. Backcasting is part of the agenda of this
process. What still needs to be developed for this process is BSTEs in order to facilitate
higher order learning. The closing of the inner city of Boston for IC vehicles could be an
interesting experiment of this kind.

5. Conclusions and discussion

In this paper we have argued that higher order learning among stakeholders is a
necessary condition for socio-technical system innovations. While there may be a broad
based agreement on this notion among the “transition management” scholars, relatively
little research thought has been given to how to facilitate such learning and how to study
it. In this paper we advanced the idea that small-scale experiments (BSTE) facilitate
higher order learning because of the sharing of a vision, varied participants, and the
common focus on solving a technical problem. Visioning and backcasting are the
necessary prerequisites to obtain a shared vision and the starting point for developing a
roadmap for getting there. We also made reference to our empirical studies of such
learning processes, based on a conceptual framework we proposed, building on the work
of others.
The concepts of visioning, backcasting, experimentation and learning have
obtained less attention in traditional innovation studies. Traditional innovation studies
have focused more on individual innovations, on technological innovation in the firm, on
sectors, or on national systems of innovation. Social-constructivist approaches have
focused on actors and stakeholders and their interactions with each other and with the
problem or the technology at hand. (Constructive) Technology Assessment has focused
 11

again on stakeholder participation in decision making in order to avert undesirable

consequences.
Visioning – a heuristic device, which maps a “possibility space” - can be powerful
instrument for inspiring societal actors to investigate different problem definitions, test
alternative strategies, and find shared areas of agreement. Scenario building and
backcasting, especially when used as a follow-up to visioning exercises, are also
promising multi-stakeholder approaches. Both aim at creating blueprints to bridge the
present and the future; scenarios create ‘alternative futures’ based on some form of trend-
extrapolation and informed by an understanding of dominant drivers; in backcasting a
future vision or normative scenario is followed by looking back in time and creating a
strategy or action plan for proceeding from the present toward the desirable future.
A transition from a car-centered personal mobility system toward a sustainable
mobility system cannot be designed as a blueprint, owing to its complexity. Rather, a
broad societal learning process is needed, with a focus on the system as a whole: its
spatial characteristics, the infrastructural and technologic options, individual needs for
mobility and access, cultural norms, and institutions, as well as their mutual
interdependence. This, in turn, requires paying more attention to question of how to
infuse the present socio-technical system of individual mobility with a greater capacity to
reframe problems, to synthesize the accumulated cross-disciplinary and cross-
institutional knowledge, and to set and articulate alternative policy and technology
trajectories. This, in essence, is our framing of “transition management.”
The policy implications of these conclusions are that more attention and funding
should be allocated to multi-stakeholder visioning processes, interactive backcasting
exercises, small-scale experimentation with promising socio-technical solutions, and
“reflexive” monitoring [Grin et al, 2005] of these experiments in a way that enables and
diffuses learning. In addition, strong communication and education policies are
necessary. Above all a strong government commitment is necessary to reduce CO2
emissions to specific target levels by a variety of technical and non-technical instruments.
In this way an innovative climate will be nurtured both at the supply and the demand
side.

References
Abernathy, W. J. and K. B. Clark, 1985, Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative
Destruction. Research Policy 14: 3-22.
Anderson K.L. 2001, Reconciling the electricity industry with sustainable development:
backcasting–a strategic alternative. Futures 33: 607-23.
Bailie, A., B. Doherty, S. Kartha, M. Lazarus, C. Rajan, B. Runkle, Aug 2005, Hydrogen
Transitions in a Greenhouse Gas Constrained World, Vol. 1 Main summary report, Draft
Berkhout, F., J. Hertin, A. Jordan, 2002, Socio-economical futures in climate change
impact assessment: using scenarios as “learning machines”, Global Environmental
Change 12: 83-95
Brown, H.S., P.J. Vergragt, K. Green, L. Berchicci, 2003, Learning for sustainability
transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 13(3): 298-315.
 12

Brown, H.S., P.J. Vergragt, K. Green, L. Berchicci, 2004, Bounded Socio-Technical

Experiments (BSTEs): Higher order learning for transitions towards sustainable
mobility. In: Elzen B, F.W. Geels, K. Green eds. System innovation and the transition to
sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 191-222.
Brown H.S, P.J. Vergragt, 2006, Bounded Socio-Technical Experiments as Agents of
Systemic Change: The Case of a Zero-Energy Residential Building, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, on the web at Science Direct
Christensen, Clayton M. 1997, The Innovator's Dilemma; When New Technologies Cause
Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press
DOE, 2002, US Dept of Energy, A National Vision, Feb 2002
DOE, 2003, US Dept of Energy
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html
DOE, 2004, US Dept of Energy, Hydrogen Posture Plan, Feb 2004
Eames, M., W. McDowall, 2005, UKSHEC Hydrogen visions, PSI London
Eames, M., W. McDowall, 2006, (draft) Transitions to a UK hydrogen economy, PSI
London
Ehrlich, P.R., J.P. Holdren, 1971, Impact of Population Growth, Science: 1212-1217
Fischer, F. 1995, Evaluating Public Policy, Westview Press, Boulder,
Green, Ken, and Philip Vergragt, 2002, Towards Sustainable Households: A methodology
for developing sustainable technological and social innovations, Futures 34: 381-400
Green, C., S. Baksi, M. Dilmagham, 2006, Challenges to a climate stabilizing energy
future, Energy Policy, in press, accessible by Science Direct
Grin, J., and H. van de Graaf, 1996a, Technology Assessment as Learning, Science,
Technology and Human values 20 (1): 72-99
Grin, J., and H. van de Graaf, H. 1996b, Implementation as communicative action; an
interpretive understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups,
Policy Sciences 29: 291-319
Grin, J., A. Grunwald, 2000, Vision Assessment, shaping technology in the 21st century:
towards a repertoire for Technology Assessment, Springer Verlag, Berlin
Grin, J. and R. Weterings, 2005, Reflexive monitoring of system innovative projects:
strategic nature and relevant competences, paper for the session ‘Reflexive Governance
for Sustainable Development’, at the 6th Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of
Global Environmental Change Research Community, 9-13 October, the University of
Bonn
Hoed, Robert van den, Philip J. Vergragt, 2006, Institutional Change in the Automotive
Industry, or How Fuel Cell Technology is being Institutionalised, Greener Management
International, 47 45-61; also published in Nieuwenhuis, P, Ph. Vergragt, P. Wells (eds),
2006 The business of Sustainable mobility: from Vision to reality, Greenleaf, Sheffield,
UK, pp 61-79
 13

Hoffman, P. 2000, Tomorrow’s Energy; Hydrogen fuel cells and the prospects for a
cleaner planet, MIT press, Cambridge, MA
Kemp, R., J. Rotmans, 2005, The Management of the Co-evolution of Technical,
Environmental and Social Systems, in: J. Hemmelskamp, and M. Weber, eds, Towards
Environmental Innovation Systems, Springer, Berlin, p.33-56
MAPC. http://www.metrofuture.org/ 2004
Orsato, R. 2006, Future imperfect; the enduring struggle for electric vehicles, in
Nieuwenhuis, P, Ph. Vergragt, P. Wells (eds), The business of Sustainable mobility: from
Vision to reality, Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK, pp 35-44
Quist, Jaco, and Philip Vergragt, 2006, Past and Future of back-casting: The shift to
stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework, Futures, on
the web on Science Direct
Ramesohl, S., and F. Merten, 2006, Energy systems aspects of hydrogen as an alternative
fuel in transport, Energy Policy 34 (11) 1251-1259
Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R., Swart, R.
2002, Great transition: The promise and lure of the time ahead, Tellus Institute, Boston,
MA. www.tellus.org
Robinson J. 1982, Energy backcasting: A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy
Policy10:337-44.
Romm, J. 2004, The hype about hydrogen, Washington DC: Island Press
Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt, 2001, More Evolution than revolution:
Transition Management in Public Policy, Foresight 3, 15-31
Schön, D.A. 1983, The reflective Practitioner, How Professionals think in action. Basic
Books, New York
Schön, D.A., and M. Rein, 1994, Frame Reflection. Towards the Resolution of
Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books, New York
Stephens, J. C., and B. v. d. Zwaan, 2005, The Case for Carbon Capture and Storage
Issues in Science and Technology, p. 69-76.
Turton, H., 2006, Sustainable global automobile transport in the 21st century: an
integrated scenario analysis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73: 607-629
Vergragt P.J. 2005, Back-casting for environmental sustainability: From STD and
SusHouse towards implementation. In: Weber M, Hemmelskamp J, eds. Towards
environmental innovation systems. Heidelberg: Springer, 340 p. ISBN 3-54022322-3 pp
301-318
Vergragt P.J. 2006, Towards a national policy dialogue on hydrogen in the USA, Paper
for 9th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation: “Science, Society
and Sustainability”, Santorini, Greece, 18-21 June 2006; also for 13th Greening of
Industry Conference, Cardiff, UK, 2-5 July 2006
 14

Vergragt, Philip J., J. Leo A. Jansen, 1993, Sustainable technological development: The
making of a Dutch long term oriented technology program, Project Appraisal 8(3) 134-
140
Vergragt P.J., G. van Grootveld, 1994, Sustainable technology development in the
Netherlands: The first phase of the Dutch STD program, Journal of Cleaner Production
2(3-4):133-139
Vergragt, Philip, Ken Green, 2001, The SusHouse Methodology: Design Orienting
Scenarios for Sustainable Solutions, Journal of Design Research http://jdr.tudelft.nl/
Vergragt Philip J., and, Halina S Brown 2006, “Sustainable Mobility: from technological
innovation to social learning, Journal of Cleaner Production, to be published
Weaver P, L. Jansen, G. van Grootveld, E. van Spiegel, P.J. Vergragt, 2000, Sustainable
Technology Development. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, ISBN 1-874719-09-8
Weiss M.A., J.B. Heywood, E. Drake, A. Schaefer, F. AuYeung, 2000, On the road in
2020, a life cycle analysis of new automobile technologies. MIT Energy Laboratory
Report No. MIT EL 00-003, Energy Laboratory. Cambridge, MA
Weiss M.A., J. B. Heywood, A. Schafer, V. Natarajan, 2003, Comparative assessment of
fuel cell cars. MIT LFEE 2003-001 RP