Constructing Transition Paths Through the Management of Niches

By René Kemp, Arie Rip, Johan Schot. 2001

463 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d54857c770c02df3291e08b48f6739c4d0bbf4b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Co-evolutionary and multi-level dynamics in transitions: The transformation of aviation systems and the shift from propeller to turbojet (1930–1970) (2006, background): “From this background, the literature on strategic niche management distinguishes three important niche-internal processes (Schot et al., 1994; Kemp et al. 1998, 2001; Hoogma et al., 2002).”
Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change (2017, background): “Consequently, new, more sustainable patterns might emerge, partly embodied in new technologies and in new practices based on new experiences and ideas (151).”
Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions (2008, background): “…historically descriptive approaches to transitions, and those which over-emphasise the role of niches in transformation, such as those associated with systems in transition research and work on strategic niche management (Hoogma et al, 2002; Kemp et al, 1998; Kemp et al, 2001; Schot et al, 1994).”
From post-productionism to reflexive governance: Contested transitions in securing more sustainable food futures (2013, background): “Scientific, social and governance innovation in these niches may be crucial for regime change (Kemp et al., 2001), but the mainstream may simply absorb and marginalise the niches and their values (constructed marginalisation).”
Dynamics in socio-technical systems : typology of change processes and contrasting case studies (2007, background): “Niches provide space for learning processes and the build-up of social networks that support the new innovation and invest in its development [10,12,13,27].”
The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions (2005, background): “While the transition management literature gives a key role to non-state actors (cf. Kemp et al., 2001), the nuclear example suggests that the coordination of the many diverse and nascent resources involved in a radical change has, in the past, often required robust intervention by states.”
Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution (2004, methodology): “For example, roadmaps can be used as a means for assessing the impact of potentially disruptive technologies and markets on business plans and systems.”
Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric vehicles (2013, background): “(2002) is a framework to induce and manage technological regime shifts (Kemp et al., 2001) and is used to explain the success or failure of promising technologies.”
Path Dependence or Path Creation (2010, background): “policy makers) can intervene to ‘steer’ (Kemp et al., 2001) these processes out of lock-in.”
Circular futures: What Will They Look Like? (2020, background): “Some of our scenarios are more probable than others, given the phenomenon of path dependency9 at play in complex socio-technical systems (Kemp et al., 2001).”
Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study (2002, methodology): “In this section, I briefly outline the multi-level framework, which has been described more elaborately elsewhere (Kemp, 1994; Schot et al., 1994; Rip and Kemp, 1998; Kemp et al., 1998; Van den Ende and Kemp, 1999; Rip, 2000; Geels and Kemp, 2000; Kemp et al., 2001).”