Advertisement

The Importance of Space: Towards a Socio-Material and Political Geography of Energy Transitions

  • Sören Becker
  • Timothy Moss
  • Matthias Naumann
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reviews research on ways of theorizing spatial perspectives on socio-technical change in order to provide guidance for future research on the multiple geographies of energy transitions in Germany and elsewhere. Firstly, we analyse the ‘spatial turn’ in science and technology studies by tracing the genealogy of scholarship at the interface of socio-technical research and urban studies. Secondly, we focus on the spatial perspectives of energy transitions, drawing on contributions from the fields of political science, human geography and planning studies. Thirdly, we revisit selected conceptual approaches from earlier chapters to explore how they theorize the spatial dimensions of institutions, materiality and power, respectively. The chapter concludes with reflections on what this means for developing a socio-material and political geography of energy transitions.

Keyword

Energy transition production of space re-scaling spatial materiality 

References

  1. Aibar, E., and W. E. Bijker. 1997. “Constructing a City: The Cerda Plan for the Extension of Barcelona.” Science, Technology & Human Values 22 (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. 2003. Lost Geographies of Power. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J., and A. Cochrane. 2007. “Beyond the Territorial Fix: Regional Assemblages, Politics and Power.” Regional Studies 41 (9): 1161–1175.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, B., M. Kearnes, C. McFarlane, and D. Swanton. 2012. “On Assemblages and Geography.” Dialogues in Human Geography 2 (2): 171–189.Google Scholar
  5. Bender, T. 2010. “Postscript: Reassembling the City: Networks and Urban Imaginaries.” In Urban Assemblages. How Actor-network Theory Changes Urban Studies, edited by I. Farías, and T. Bender. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Betsill, M., and H. Bulkeley. 2007. “Looking Back and Thinking Ahead: A Decade of Cities and Climate Change Research.” Local Environment 12 (5): 447–456.Google Scholar
  7. Bosse, G. 2011. “The EU’s Geopolitical Vision of a European Energy Space: When “Gulliver” Meets “White Elephants” and Verdi’s Babylonian King.” Geopolitics 16 (3): 512–535.Google Scholar
  8. Bouzarovski, S. 2009. “East-Central Europe’s Changing Energy Landscapes: A Place for Geography.” Area 41 (4): 452–463.Google Scholar
  9. Breukers, S., and M. Wolsink. 2007. “Wind Power Implementation in Changing Institutional Landscapes. An International Comparison.” Energy Policy 35 (5): 2737–2750.Google Scholar
  10. Bridge, G., S. Bouzarovski, M. Bradshaw, and N. Eyre. 2013. “Geographies of Energy Transition: Space, Place and the Low-carbon Economy.” Energy Policy 53: 331–340.Google Scholar
  11. Bulkeley, H., V. Castán Broto, and G. A. Edwards. 2014a. An Urban Politics of Climate Change. Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-technical Transitions. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Bulkeley, H., and V. Castán Broto. 2013. “Government by Experiment? Global Cities and the Governing of Climate Change.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38 (3): 361–375.Google Scholar
  13. Bulkeley, H., V. Castán Broto, M. Hodson, and S. Marvin, eds. 2011. Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bulkeley, H., and K. Kern. 2006. “Local Government and the Governing of Climate Change in Germany and the UK.” Urban Studies 43 (12): 2237–2259.Google Scholar
  15. Buzar, S. 2007. Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe. Hidden Geographies of Deprivation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. Castán Broto, V., and H. Bulkeley. 2013. “Maintaining Climate Change Experiments: Urban Political Ecology and the Everyday Reconfiguration of Urban Infrastructure.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (6): 1934–1948.Google Scholar
  17. Chappells, H., and E. Shove. 2005. “Debating the Future of Comfort: Environmental Sustainability, Energy Consumption and the Indoor Environment.” Building Research & Information 33 (1): 32–40.Google Scholar
  18. Coenen, L., P. Benneworth, and B. Truffer. 2012. “Toward a Spatial Perspective on Sustainability Transitions.” Research Policy 41 (6): 968–979.Google Scholar
  19. Collier, A. 1994. Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's Philosophy. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  20. Coutard, O. 1999a. “The Evolving Forms of Governance of Large Technical Systems. Introduction.” In The Governance of Large Technical Systems, edited by O. Coutard. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Coutard, O., and S. Guy. 2007. “STS and the City: Politics and Practices of Hope.” Science, Technology & Human Values 32 (6): 713–734.Google Scholar
  22. Coutard, O., R. E. Hanley, and R. Zimmerman, eds. 2005. Sustaining Urban Networks. The Social Diffusion of Large Technical Systems. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Coutard, O., and J. Rutherford. 2010. “Energy Transition and City–Region Planning: Understanding the Spatial Politics of Systemic Change.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22 (6): 711–727.Google Scholar
  24. Crampton, J. W., and S. Elden, eds. 2010. Space, Knowledge and Power. Foucault and Geography. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Cupples, J. 2011. “Shifting Networks of Power in Nicaragua: Relational Materialisms in the Consumption of Privatized Electricity.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (4): 939–948.Google Scholar
  26. Emelianoff, C. 2014. “Local Energy Transition and Multilevel Climate Governance: The Contrasted Experiences of Two Pioneer Cities (Hanover, Germany, and Vaxjo, Sweden).” Urban Studies 51 (7): 1378–1393.Google Scholar
  27. Farías, I. 2010. “Introduction: Decentring the Object of Urban Studies.” In Urban Assemblages. How Actor-network Theory Changes Urban Studies, edited by I. Farías, and T. Bender. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Farías, I., and T. Bender, eds. 2010. Urban Assemblages. How Actor-network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Fornahl, D., R. Hassink, C. Klaerding, I. Mossig, and H. Schröder. 2012. “From the Old Path of Shipbuilding onto the New Path of Offshore Wind Energy? The Case of Northern Germany.” European Planning Studies 20 (5): 835–855.Google Scholar
  30. Füller, H., and B. Michel. 2012. “Einleitung. Raum als Heuristik für die sozialwissenschaftliche Machtanalyse.” In Die Ordnung der Räume. Geographische Forschung im Anschluss an Michel Foucault, edited by H. Füller, and B. Michel. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  31. Gandy, M. 2002. Concrete and Clay. Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Graham, S., and S. Marvin. 2001. Splintering Urbanism. Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Guy, S., S. Graham, and S. Marvin. 1996. “Privatized Utilities and Regional Governance: The New Regional Managers?” Regional Studies 30 (8): 733–739.Google Scholar
  34. Heynen, N., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw, eds. 2006a. In the Nature of Cities. Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Heynen, N., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw. 2006b. “Urban Political Ecology. Politicizing the Production of Urban Natures.” In In the Nature of Cities. Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism, edited by N. Heynen, M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hodson, M., and S. Marvin. 2010. “Can Cities Shape Socio-technical Transitions and How Would We Know if They Were?” Research Policy 39 (4): 477–485.Google Scholar
  37. Hodson, M., and S. Marvin. 2012. “Mediating Low-Carbon Urban Transitions? Forms of Organization, Knowledge and Action.” European Planning Studies 20 (3): 421–439.Google Scholar
  38. Holifield, R. 2009. “Actor-Network Theory as a Critical Approach to Environmental Justice: A Case against Synthesis with Urban Political Ecology.” Antipode 41 (4): 637–658.Google Scholar
  39. Hommels, A. 2005. “Studying Obduracy in the City: Toward a Productive Fusion between Technology Studies and Urban Studies.” Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (3): 323–351.Google Scholar
  40. Huber, M. T. 2009. “Energizing Historical Materialism: Fossil Fuels, Space and the Capitalist Mode of Production.” Geoforum 40 (1): 105–115.Google Scholar
  41. Huber, M. T. 2011. “Enforcing Scarcity: Oil, Violence, and the Making of the Market.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (4): 816–826.Google Scholar
  42. Hughes, T. P. 1983. Networks of Power. Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Huxley, M. 2010. “Geographies of Governmentality.” In Space, Knowledge and Power. Foucault and Geography, edited by J. W. Crampton, and S. Elden. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  44. Jarass, H. D., ed. 2011. Erneuerbare Energien in der Raumplanung. Symposium des Zentralinstituts für Raumplanung an der Universität Münster am 13. Mai 2011. Berlin: Lexxion.Google Scholar
  45. Jessop, B. 2010. State Power. A Strategic-relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  46. Jessop, B., N. Brenner, and M. Jones. 2008. “Theorizing Sociospatial Relations.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (3): 389–401.Google Scholar
  47. Jiusto, S. 2009. “Energy Transformations and Geographic Research.” In A Companion to Environmental Geography, edited N. Castree, and D. Demeritt. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Karvonen, A., and B. van Heur. 2014. “Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2): 379–392.Google Scholar
  49. Kern, K., and G. Aber. 2008. “Governing Climate Change in Cities: Modes of Urban Climate Governance in Multi-level Systems.” In Competitive Cities and Climate Change, edited by OECD. OECD-Conference Proceedings, Milan, Italy, 9–10 October 2008, Paris.Google Scholar
  50. Kern, K., and H. Bulkeley. 2009. “Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks.” Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2): 309–332.Google Scholar
  51. Lawhon, M., and J. Murphy. 2012. “Socio-technical Regimes and Sustainability Transitions: Insights from Political Ecology.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (3): 354–378.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, T., and S. van de Meene. 2012. “Who Teaches and Who Learns? Policy Learning Through the C40 Cities Climate Network.” Policy Sciences 45 (3): 199–220.Google Scholar
  53. Lefebvre, H. 2010. The Production of Space. 29th ed. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Lurz, M., M. Tischer, and M. Stöhr. 2006. “Strukturumbau der Energieversorgung und nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung. Forschungsergebnisse zur Annäherung zweier “Welten”.” Raumplanung 128: 191–195.Google Scholar
  55. Marston, S. A., J. P. Jones, and K. Woodward. 2005. “Human Geography Without Scale.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30 (4): 416–432.Google Scholar
  56. McFarlane, C. 2011b. “The City as Assemblage: Dwelling and Urban Space.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29 (4): 649–671.Google Scholar
  57. McFarlane, C., and J. Rutherford. 2008. “Political Infrastructures: Governing and Experiencing the Fabric of the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (2): 363–374.Google Scholar
  58. Melosi, M. V. 2000. The Sanitary City. Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Monstadt, J. 2007. “Urban Governance and the Transition of Energy Systems: Institutional Change and Shifting Energy and Climate Policies in Berlin.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 (2): 326–343.Google Scholar
  60. Monstadt, J. 2009. “Conceptualizing the Political Ecology of Urban Infrastructures: Insights from Technology and Urban Studies.” Environment and Planning A 41 (8): 1924–1942.Google Scholar
  61. Moss, T., L. Gailing, K. Kern, M. Naumann, and A. Röhring. 2013. Energie als Gemeinschaftsgut? Anregungen für die raumwissenschaftliche Energieforschung. Leibniz-Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, Erkner. Accessed October 16, 2013. http://www.irs-net.de/download/wp_gemeinschaftsgut_energie.pdf.
  62. Mumford, L. 1967. The Myth of the Machine. Technics and Human Development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  63. Raven, R., J. Schot, and F. Berkhout. 2012. “Space and Scale in Socio-technical Transitions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 4: 63–78.Google Scholar
  64. Rose, M. H., and J. A. Tarr. 1987. “The City and Technology. Introduction.” Journal of Urban History 14 (1): 3–6.Google Scholar
  65. Rosen, C. M. 1986. “Infrastructural Improvement in Nineteenth-Century Cities: A Conceptual Framework and Cases.” Journal of Urban History 12 (3): 211–256.Google Scholar
  66. Rutherford, J., and O. Coutard. 2014. “Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes and Politics of Socio-technical Change.” Urban Studies 51 (7): 1353–1377.Google Scholar
  67. Rutland, T., and A. Aylett. 2008. “The Work of Policy: Actor Networks, Governmentality, and Local Action on Climate Change in Portland, Oregon.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (4): 627–646.Google Scholar
  68. Schöbel, S. 2012. Windenergie und Landschaftsästhetik. Zur landschaftsgerechten Anordnung von Windfarmen. Berlin: Jovis.Google Scholar
  69. Seyfang, G., J. J. Park, and A. Smith. 2013. “A Thousand Flowers Blooming? An Examination of Community Energy in the UK.” Energy Policy 61: 977–989.Google Scholar
  70. Smith, N. 1984. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  71. Späth, P., and H. Rohracher. 2010. “‘Energy Regions’: The Transformative Power of Regional Discourses on Socio-technical Futures.” Research Policy 39 (4): 449–458.Google Scholar
  72. Strachan, P. A., and D. Lal. 2004. “Wind Energy Policy, Planning and Management Practice in the UK: Hot Air or a Gathering Storm?” Regional Studies 38 (5): 549–569.Google Scholar
  73. Sum, N.-L., and B. Jessop. 2013. Towards a Cultural Political Economy. Putting Culture in Its Place in Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  74. Summerton, J. 1994. “Introductory Essay: The Systems Approach to Technological Change.” In Changing Large Technical Systems, edited by J. Summerton. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  75. Swyngedouw, E., and N. C. Heynen. 2003. “Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale.” Antipode 35 (5): 898–918.Google Scholar
  76. Tarr, J. A. 1979. “The Seperate vs. Combined Sewer Problem: A Case Study in Urban Technology Design Choice.” Journal of Urban History 5 (3): 308–339.Google Scholar
  77. Tarr, J. A., and G. Dupuy, eds. 1988. Technology and the Rise of the Networked City in Europe and America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Toke, D. 2011. Ecological Modernisation and Renewable Energy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  79. Truffer, B., and L. Coenen. 2012. “Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Regional Studies.” Regional Studies 46 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  80. van Vliet, B., H. Chappells, and E. Shove. 2005. Infrastructures of Consumption. Environmental Innovation in the Utility Industries. Sterling: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  81. Venjakob, J. 2012. Qualitativ-narrative Szenarios für die langfristige Entwicklung des polnischen Energiesektors. Eine energiegeographische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: ibidem.Google Scholar
  82. von Seht, H. 2010. “Eine neue Raumordnung: erforderlich für den Klimaschutz.” Raumplanung 153: 277–282.Google Scholar
  83. Walker, G., S. Hunter, P. Devine-Wright, B. Evans, and H. Fay. 2007. “Harnessing Community Energies. Explaining and Evaluating Community-Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy in the UK.” Global Environmental Politics 7 (2): 64–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sören Becker
    • 1
  • Timothy Moss
    • 2
  • Matthias Naumann
    • 1
  1. 1.ErknerGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS)ErknerGermany

Personalised recommendations