IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i2p211-224..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-technical change linking expectations and representations: Innovating thermal treatment of municipal solid waste

Author

Listed:
  • Les Levidow
  • Paul Upham

Abstract

This paper combines two theoretical perspectives: future technological expectations mobilising resources, and social representations assimilating new ideas through anchoring onto familiar frames of reference. The combination is applied to the controversial case of thermal-treatment options for municipal solid waste, especially via gasification technology. Stakeholders’ social representations set criteria for technological expectations and their demonstration requirements, whose fulfilment in turn has helped gasification to gain more favourable representations. Through a differential ‘anchoring’, gasification is represented as matching incineration’s positive features while avoiding its negative ones. Despite their limitations, current two-stage combustion gasifiers are promoted as a crucial transition towards a truly ‘advanced’ form producing a clean syngas: R&D investment reinforces expectations for advancing the technology. Such linkages between technological expectations and social representations may have broader relevance to socio-technical change, especially where public controversy arises over the wider systemic role of an innovation trajectory.

Suggested Citation

  • Les Levidow & Paul Upham, 2017. "Socio-technical change linking expectations and representations: Innovating thermal treatment of municipal solid waste," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 211-224.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:211-224.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    2. Johan Hultman & Hervé Corvellec, 2012. "The European Waste Hierarchy: From the Sociomateriality of Waste to a Politics of Consumption," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(10), pages 2413-2427, October.
    3. Meijer, Ineke S.M. & Hekkert, Marko P. & Koppenjan, Joop F.M., 2007. "The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5836-5854, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dmitry Porshnov, 2022. "Evolution of pyrolysis and gasification as waste to energy tools for low carbon economy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(1), January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thammarat Koottatep & Krisakorn Sukavejworakit & Thanaphol Virasa, 2020. "Roadmap for Innovators in the Process of Innovation for Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Levidow, Les & Upham, Paul, 2017. "Linking the multi-level perspective with social representations theory: Gasifiers as a niche innovation reinforcing the energy-from-waste (EfW) regime," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Wihlborg, Elin & Söderholm, Kristina, 2013. "Mediators in action: Organizing sociotechnical system change," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 267-275.
    4. Bongsuk Sung & Myoung Shik Choi & Woo-Yong Song, 2019. "Exploring the Effects of Government Policies on Economic Performance: Evidence Using Panel Data for Korean Renewable Energy Technology Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Dinica, Valentina, 2009. "Biomass power: Exploring the diffusion challenges in Spain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1551-1559, August.
    6. Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Li, Ying & Van de Vrande, Vareska, 2009. "The dual role of external corporate venturing in technological exploration," MPRA Paper 26488, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.
    7. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    8. Krzysztof BORODAKO & Jadwiga BERBEKA & Michał RUDNICKI & Mariusz ŠAPCZYŃSKI, 2021. "Online Visibility and Knowledge-Intensive Business Services Performance: The Scope of Interrelatedness," Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 157-173, August.
    9. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    10. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    11. Feser, Daniel & Runst, Petrik, 2016. "Energy efficiency consultants as change agents? Examining the reasons for EECs’ limited success," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 309-317.
    12. Huasheng Zhu & Kelly Wanjing Chen & Juncheng Dai, 2016. "Beyond Apprenticeship: Knowledge Brokers and Sustainability of Apprentice-Based Clusters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Bhattacharjya, Bibhuti Ranjan & Bhaduri, Saradindu & Kakoty, Sashindra Kumar, 2023. "Co-creating community-led frugal innovation: An adapted Quadruple Helix?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    14. Matias Ramirez & Ian Clarke & Laurens Klerkx, 2018. "Analysing intermediary organisations and their influence on upgrading in emerging agricultural clusters," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(6), pages 1314-1335, September.
    15. Kreiling, Laura & Serval, Sarah & Peres, Raphaële & Bounfour, Ahmed, 2020. "University technology transfer organizations: Roles adopted in response to their regional innovation system stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 218-229.
    16. Vasile Alecsandru Strat & Adriana AnaMaria Davidescu & Raluca Mariana Grosu & Ion-Daniel Zgura, 2016. "Regional Development Fueled by Entrepreneurial Ventures Providing KIBS – Case Study on Romania," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 18(41), pages 1-55, February.
    17. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2016. "Knowledge creation and dissemination by Kosetsushi in sectoral innovation systems: insights from patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2303-2327, December.
    18. Francesco Campanella & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Stefano Bresciani & Luca Dezi, 2017. "Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 267-284, April.
    19. Abdelkader Djeflat & Yevgeny Kuznetsov, 2014. "Innovation Policy Reforms, Emerging Role Models and Bridge Institutions: Evidence from North African Economies," African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(5), pages 467-479, September.
    20. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:2:p:211-224.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.