Foundations of Science

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 367–372 | Cite as

Nurturing Technologies for Sustainability Transitions



This paper is a commentary to a paper by Erik Paredis (2011). It is firstly argued that the theories of technology, as distinguished by Feenberg, cannot adequately explain the different interpretations of the role of technology in the transition towards sustainability, as Paredis argues. Secondly, the basic argument of Paredis is countered that transition research is fundamentally handicapped by its constructivists roots to discriminate between options. Finally it is argued that a third strand of transition research exists that is explicitly interventionist, and that nurtures specific technology in context.


Technology Sustainability Constructivism Substantivism  Transition research Transition management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banuri T., Weyant J., Akuma G., Najam A., Pinguelli R. L., Rayner S. et al (2001) Setting the stage: Climate change and sustainable development. In: Metz B., Davidson O., Swart R., Pan J. (eds) Climate change 2001: Mitigation, contribution of working III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bos A. P. (2008) Instrumentalization theory and reflexive design in animal husbandry. Social Epistemology 22(1): 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bos A. P., Groot Koerkamp P. W. G. (2009) Synthesizing needs in system innovation through methodical design. A methodical outline on the role of needs in reflexive interactive design (RIO). In: Poppe K. J., Termeer C., Slingerland M. (eds) Transitions towards sustainable agriculture, food chains and peri-urban areas. Wageningen Academic Publishers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos A. P., Groot Koerkamp P. W. G., Groenestein K. (2003) A novel design approach based on recursive control. Livestock Production Science 84: 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feenberg A. (1999) Questioning technology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Geels F. W. (2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17(4): 445–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goeminne, G., & Paredis, E. (2011). The concept of ecological debt: Challenging established science-policy frameworks in the transition to sustainable development. In E. Techera (Ed.), Frontiers of environment and citizenship. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press (in print).Google Scholar
  8. Groot Koerkamp P. W. G., Bos A. P. (2008) Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems; an integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55(2): 113–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kemp R., Loorbach D., Rotmans J. (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14: 78–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loorbach D (2007) Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. International Books, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Paredis, E. (2011). Sustainability transitions and the nature of technology. Foundations of Science, 16(2–3), 195–225.Google Scholar
  12. Peeters J. (1996) Leven naar menselijke maat. Otto Ulrichs antwoord op moderne schaarste. In: Janssens F., Melle U. (eds) Voeten in de aarde. Radicale groene denkers. Hadewijch/Van Arkel, Antwerpen/UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Rotmans J., Loorbach D. (2007) Transition management: Reflexive steering of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. In: Van den Bergh J., Bruinsma F. R. (eds) The transition to renewable energy: Theory and practcie. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Sachs W. (1999) Planet dialectics. Explorations in environment and development. Zed Books, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Schot J. W., Hoogma R., Elzen B. E. (1994) Strategies for shifting technological systems—the case of the automobile system. Futures 26(10): 1060–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ulrich O. (1992) Technology. In: Sachs W. (eds) The development dictionary. A guide to knowledge as power. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Von Weiszäcker E., Lovins A. B., Lovins L. H. (1997) Factor four. Doubling wealth, halving resource use. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Livestock Research, Wageningen URLelystadThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations