CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 949

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective

Geels, Frank W·2019·Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. Ivanova, 2016, Environmental impact assessment of household consumption, J Ind Ecol, 20, 526, 10.1111/jiec.12371 · DOI
  2. Farla, 2012, Sustainability transitions in the making: a closer look at actors, strategies and resources, Technol Forecast Soc, 79, 991, 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001 · DOI
  3. Fuenfschilling, 2016, The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems – an analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector, Technol Forecast Soc, 103, 298, 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.023 · DOI
  4. Geels, 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014), Res Policy, 45, 896, 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015 · DOI
  5. Rosenbloom, 2016, Framing the sun: a discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada, Res Policy, 45, 1275, 10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.012 · DOI
  6. Dzebo, 2017, A new regime and then what? Cracks and tensions in the socio-technical regime of the Swedish heat energy system, Energy Res Soc Sci, 29, 113, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.018 · DOI
  7. Mazur, 2015, Assessing and comparing German and UK transition policies for electric mobility, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 14, 84, 10.1016/j.eist.2014.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Berkeley, 2018, Assessing the transition towards battery electric vehicles: a Multi-Level Perspective on drivers of, and barriers to, take up, Transp Res Part A Policy Pract, 106, 320, 10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.004 · DOI
  9. Mylan, 2019, Rage against the regime: niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milk, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 31, 233, 10.1016/j.eist.2018.11.001 · DOI
  10. Moradi, 2018, A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: what are the future transition pathways?, Technol Forecast Soc, 126, 231, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.002 · DOI
  11. Smith, 2010, Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of a multi-level perspective and its challenges, Res Policy, 39, 435, 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023 · DOI
  12. Markard, 2012, Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects, Res Policy, 41, 955, 10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 · DOI
  13. Köhler, 2019, An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 31, 1, 10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bui, 2016, Sustainability transitions: insights on processes of niche-regime interaction and regime reconfiguration in agri-food systems, J Rural Stud, 48, 92, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Tuama, 2015, Ripples through the city: understanding the processes set in motion through embedding a public bike sharing scheme in a city, Res Transp Bus Manage, 15, 15
  16. Morris, 2014, Less meat initiatives: an initial exploration of a diet-focused social innovation in transitions to a more sustainable regime of meat provisioning, Int J Sociol Agric Food, 21, 189
  17. Hölsgens, 2018, Social innovations in the German energy transition: an attempt to use the heuristics of the multi-level perspective of transitions to analyze the diffusion process of social innovations, Energy Sustain Soc, 8, 8, 10.1186/s13705-018-0150-7 · DOI
  18. Hynes, 2016, Developing (tele)work? A multi-level sociotechnical perspective of telework in Ireland, Res Transp Econ, 57, 21, 10.1016/j.retrec.2016.06.008 · DOI
  19. Lepoutre, 2018, The (non-)emergence of mobile money systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: a comparative multilevel perspective of Kenya and Nigeria, Technol Forecast Soc, 131, 262, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.010 · DOI
  20. Hassink, 2018, Enriching the multi-level perspective by better understanding agency and challenges associated with interactions across system boundaries. The case of care farming in the Netherlands: multifunctional agriculture meets health care, J Rural Stud, 57, 186, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.018 · DOI
  21. Schneidewind, 2016, Three schools of transformation thinking: the impact of ideas, institutions, and technological innovation on transformation processes, GAIA, 25, 88, 10.14512/gaia.25.2.7 · DOI
  22. O’Brien, 2018, Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation, Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 31, 153, 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010 · DOI
  23. Loorbach, 2017, Sustainability transition research: transforming science and practice for societal change, Annu Rev Environ Resour, 42, 599, 10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Røpke, 2016, Complementary system perspectives in ecological macroeconomics — the example of transition investments during the crisis, Ecol Econ, 121, 237, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.018 · DOI
  25. Patterson, 2017, Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 24, 1, 10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001 · DOI
  26. Feola, 2015, Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts, Ambio, 44, 376, 10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z · DOI
  27. Brand, 2016, “Transformation” as a new critical orthodoxy: the strategic use of the term “Transformation” does not prevent multiple crises, GAIA, 25, 23, 10.14512/gaia.25.1.7 · DOI
  28. Temper, 2018, A perspective on radical transformations to sustainability: resistances, movements and alternatives, Sustain Sci, 13, 747, 10.1007/s11625-018-0543-8 · DOI
  29. Jenkins, 2018, Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: an ethical framework for global transformative change, Energy Policy, 117, 66, 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.036 · DOI
  30. Sareen, 2018, Bridging socio-technical and justice aspects of sustainable energy transitions, Appl Energy, 228, 624, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.104 · DOI
  31. Gillard, 2016, Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation, WIRES Clim Change, 7, 251, 10.1002/wcc.384 · DOI
  32. Geels, 2017, Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonisation, Science, 357, 1242, 10.1126/science.aao3760 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Klitkou, 2015, The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: the case of energy for road transport, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 16, 22, 10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.005 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Nelson, 2008, Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and error learning, J Econ Behav Org, 67, 78, 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.002 · DOI
  35. Walker, 2000, Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitments and power relations, Res Policy, 29, 833, 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00108-6 · DOI
  36. Normann, 2017, Policy networks in energy transitions: the cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway, Technol Forecast Soc, 118, 80, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.004 · DOI
  37. Kemp, 1998, Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management, Technol Anal Strateg, 10, 175, 10.1080/09537329808524310 · DOI
  38. Schot, 2008, Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda and policy, Technol Anal Strateg, 20, 537, 10.1080/09537320802292651 · DOI
  39. Sengers, 2019, Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review, Technol Forecast Soc, 145, 153, 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031 · DOI
  40. Geels, 2006, Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973-2003), Technol Anal Strateg, 18, 375, 10.1080/09537320600777143 · DOI
  41. Olleros, 1986, Emerging industries and the burnout of pioneers, J Prod Innov Manag, 1, 5, 10.1111/1540-5885.310005 · DOI
  42. Pesch, 2019, Local sustainability initiatives: innovation and civic engagement in societal experiments, Eur Plan Stud, 27, 300, 10.1080/09654313.2018.1464549 · DOI
  43. Fuenfschilling, 2019, Urban experimentation & sustainability transitions, Eur Plan Stud, 27, 219, 10.1080/09654313.2018.1532977 · DOI
  44. Bulkeley, 2016, Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions, Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 22, 13, 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003 · DOI
  45. Lounsbury, 2001, Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources, Strategic Manag J, 22, 545, 10.1002/smj.188 · DOI
  46. Kivimaa, 2018, Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: a systematic review, Res Policy, 48, 1062, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006 · DOI
  47. Devine-Wright, 2017, A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: insights from energy storage, Energ Policy, 107, 27, 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.020 · DOI
  48. Meadowcroft, 2009, What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions, Policy Sci, 42, 323, 10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z · DOI
  49. Roberts, 2018, Public storylines in the British transition from rail to road transport (1896–2000): discursive struggles in the Multi-Level Perspective, Sci Cult, 27, 513, 10.1080/09505431.2018.1519532 · DOI
  50. Smith, 2005, The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions, Res Policy, 34, 1491, 10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Berggren, 2015, Transition pathways revisited: established firms as multi-level actors in the heavy vehicle industry, Res Policy, 44, 1017, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.11.009 · DOI
  52. Turnheim, 2012, Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913-1997), Energ Policy, 50, 35, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.060 · DOI
  53. Weber, 2012, Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework, Res Policy, 41, 1037, 10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Geels, 2014, Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective, Theory Cult Soc, 31, 21, 10.1177/0263276414531627 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Markard, 2016, Socio-technical transitions and policy change: advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 18, 215, 10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.003 · DOI
  56. Lockwood, 2017, Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: a research agenda, Environ Plann C, 35, 312
  57. Roberts, 2019, Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture, Technol Forecast Soc, 140, 221, 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.019 · DOI
  58. Kern, 2018, Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 27, 102, 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001 · DOI
  59. Hermwille, 2016, The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Energy Res Soc Sci, 11, 237, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.001 · DOI
  60. Hielscher, 2018, Contested smart and low-carbon energy futures: media discourses of smart meters in the United Kingdom, J Clean Prod, 195, 978, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.227 · DOI
  61. Roberts, 2017, Discursive destabilisation of socio-technical regimes: negative storylines and the decline of the American railroads, Energy Res Soc Sci, 31, 86, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.031 · DOI
  62. Rosenbloom, 2018, Framing low-carbon pathways: a discursive analysis of contending storylines surrounding the phase-out of coal-fired power in Ontario, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 27, 129, 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.003 · DOI
  63. Seyfang, 2014, A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 13, 21, 10.1016/j.eist.2014.04.004 · DOI
  64. Gernert, 2018, Grassroots initiatives as sustainability transition pioneers: implications and lessons for urban food systems, Urban Sci, 2, 23, 10.3390/urbansci2010023 · DOI
  65. Hargreaves, 2013, Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development, Global Environ Change, 23, 868, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008 · DOI
  66. Hossain, 2018, Grassroots innovation: the state of the art and future perspectives, Technol Soc, 55, 63, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.06.008 · DOI
  67. White, 2013, Sustaining trajectories towards sustainability: dynamics and diversity in UK communal growing activities, Global Environ Change, 23, 838, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.004 · DOI
  68. Smith, 2011, The transition town network: a review of current evolutions and renaissance, Soc Mov Stud, 10, 99
  69. Feola, 2014, Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the transition movement, Global Environ Change, 24, 232, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.011 · DOI
  70. Dana LP, Gurau C, Hoy F, Ramadani V, Alexander T: Success factors and challenges of grassroots innovations: Learning from failure. Technol Forecast Soc [In press].
  71. Cherp, 2017, Comparing electricity transitions: a historical analysis of nuclear, wind and solar power in Germany and Japan, Energy Policy, 101, 612, 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.044 · DOI
  72. Imbert, 2019, The transition towards a bio-based economy: a comparative study based on social network analysis, J Environ Manag, 230, 255, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.068 · DOI
  73. McMeekin, 2019, Mapping the winds of whole system reconfiguration: analysing low-carbon transformations across production, distribution and consumption in the UK electricity system, Res Policy, 48, 1216, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.007 · DOI
  74. Geels, 2018, Low-carbon transition via system reconfiguration? A socio-technical whole system analysis of passenger mobility in Great Britain (1990–2016), Energy Res Soc Sci, 46, 86, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.008 · DOI
  75. Hess, 2014, Sustainability transitions: a political coalition perspective, Res Policy, 43, 278, 10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.008 · DOI
  76. Smink, 2015, Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies, Bus Strateg Environ, 24, 86, 10.1002/bse.1808 · DOI
  77. Penna, 2015, Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979–2011): an application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model, Res Policy, 44, 1029, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.11.010 · DOI
  78. Mayer, 2018, A just transition for coal miners? Accountability frames, community economic identity, and just transition policy support among local policy actors, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 28, 1, 10.1016/j.eist.2018.03.006 · DOI
  79. Spencer, 2018, The 1.5°C target and coal sector transition: at the limits of societal feasibility, Clim Policy, 18, 335, 10.1080/14693062.2017.1386540 · DOI
  80. Rogge, 2017, Exploring the role of phase-out policies for low-carbon energy transitions: the case of the German Energiewende, Energy Res Soc Sci, 33, 128, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.004 · DOI
  81. Davidson, 2019, Exnovating for a renewable energy transition, Nat Energy, 4, 254, 10.1038/s41560-019-0369-3 · DOI
  82. Kivimaa, 2016, Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions, Res Policy, 45, 205, 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008 · DOI
  83. Kuokkanen, 2018, Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: the Finnish food system’s sustainability transition, Res Policy, 47, 1513, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.006 · DOI
  84. Kungl, 2018, Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilization: understanding the downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998-2015), Environ Innov Soc Trans, 26, 78, 10.1016/j.eist.2017.05.003 · DOI
  85. Mignon, 2018, A typology of intermediary organizations and their impact on sustainability transition policies, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 29, 100, 10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.001 · DOI
  86. Mazzucato, 2018, Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities, Ind Corp Change, 27, 803, 10.1093/icc/dty034 · DOI
  87. Quitzow, 2015, Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of environmental technologies: a review of India’s National Solar Mission, Res Policy, 44, 233, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.003 · DOI
  88. Smith, 2012, What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability, Res Policy, 41, 1025, 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 · DOI · Paper page
  89. Kern, 2015, Empowering sustainable niches: comparing UK and Dutch offshore wind developments, Technol Forecast Soc, 100, 344, 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.004 · DOI
  90. Raven, 2016, Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 18, 164, 10.1016/j.eist.2015.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Roberts, 2019, Conditions and intervention strategies for the deliberate acceleration of socio-technical transitions: lessons from a comparative multi-level analysis of two historical case studies in Dutch and Danish heating, Technol Anal Strateg, 31, 1081, 10.1080/09537325.2019.1584286 · DOI
  92. Rogge, 2016, Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis, Res Policy, 45, 1620, 10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Kern, 2017, Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes, Energy Res Soc Sci, 23, 11, 10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002 · DOI
  94. Edmondson DL, Kern F, Rogge KS: The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Res Policy [In press].
  95. Sovacool, 2016, How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions, Energy Res Soc Sci, 13, 202, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020 · DOI
  96. Meckling, 2015, Winning coalitions for climate policy, Science, 349, 1170, 10.1126/science.aab1336 · DOI
  97. Schmidt, 2017, Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics, Nat Energy, 2, 17084, 10.1038/nenergy.2017.84 · DOI
  98. Rosenbloom, 2019, Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways, Energy Res Soc Sci, 50, 168, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.009 · DOI
  99. Hajer, 2015, Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals, Sustainability, 7, 1651, 10.3390/su7021651 · DOI
  100. Kern, 2014, Measuring and explaining paradigm change: the case of UK energy policy, Policy Polit, 42, 513, 10.1332/030557312X655765 · DOI
  101. Campiglio, 2016, Beyond carbon pricing: the role of banking and monetary policy in financing the transition to a low-carbon economy, Ecol Econ, 121, 220, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.020 · DOI
  102. Mazzucato, 2015, Innovation, the state and patient capital, Polit Q, 86, 98, 10.1111/1467-923X.12235 · DOI
  103. Campiglio, 2018, Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators, Nat Clim Change, 8, 462, 10.1038/s41558-018-0175-0 · DOI
  104. Geels, 2011, The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms, Environ Innov Soc Trans, 1, 24, 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 949

Metadata

Authors
Geels, F. W.
Venue
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
39
Pages
187-201
ISSN
1877-3435
DOI
10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009
Cited by
949
References
6
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009
The paper
Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009