See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229231707

Towards governing infrasystem transitions: Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating

change?

Article  in  Technological Forecasting and Social Change · October 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.05.004

CITATIONS READS

168 535

2 authors:

Niki Frantzeskaki Derk Loorbach

Utrecht University DRIFT Dutch Research Institute for Transitions
195 PUBLICATIONS   12,657 CITATIONS    143 PUBLICATIONS   13,570 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRANSIT View project

Governing and Accelerating Transformative Entrepreneurship (GATE) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Derk Loorbach on 05 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Towards governing infrasystem transitions

Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change?
Niki Frantzeskaki a,b,⁎, Derk Loorbach b
a
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628BX Delft, The Netherlands
b
DRIFT — Dutch Research Institute For Transitions, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the interplay between changes in infrastructural systems (or
Received 16 September 2009 infrasystems) and societal context. The driving question of this paper is whether
Received in revised form 10 February 2010
infrasystems which are inherently rigid and hard to change radically are likely to block
Accepted 6 May 2010
desired transitions to sustainability, or that there are pathways in which infrasystem changes
might be utilized as drivers for accelerating desired transitions. Based on synthesizing insights
Keywords:
from research on infrastructures and on transitions, we present a typology for identifying
Infrastructures
Transition management
different types of infrasystems (infrasystem architectures), what underlies infrasystem
Dynamics complexity (infrasystem interplays), and how infrasystems might respond to change in the
Planning form of alternative pathways. Our exploratory effort draws together different literatures in
Complexity order to formulate a number of guiding conceptualizations and transition strategies for further
debate and experiment. Our analysis suggests that an infrasystem transition depends on
infrasystem architecture and on actors (regulators, planners versus users) given the multi-
actor setting of infrasystems. We show that the transition management approach offers
interesting insights when analyzing infrasystem change and that the topic of infrasystem
transitions is highly relevant and needs to be further explored within the transitions field.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Western patterns of lifestyle, production and consumption are increasingly unsustainable. Without any normative
connotation, it appears that the availability and distribution of resources, the pressure on local environments, perverse
externalities and a negative impact on development possibilities elsewhere are necessitating a fundamental shift in dominant
culture, structures and practices [1]. Some might argue that such a change will occur anyway, and that it may be triggered by
external shocks such as oil crises, flooding or other types of ‘disasters’. An understanding of societal transitions' development
(may) aid our effort towards not only developing adaptive strategies to cope with external pressures and changes, but also
anticipating such changes and actually seizing the momentum these offer to make a fundamental shift towards an inherently more
sustainable situation.
Societal transitions are processes of fundamental change in societal (sub-) systems such as energy supply, housing, mobility,
agriculture, health-care and so on [2,3]. Societal transitions come about when the dominant societal configurations (such as policy
regimes [4]) are put under pressure by external changes in society as well as by endogenous innovation. Under certain conditions,
seemingly stable societal configurations can transform relatively quickly (a societal transition can take decades). Examples of
societal transitions include fundamental changes in water management [5], waste management [6], agriculture [7], energy supply

⁎ Corresponding author. Dutch Research Institute For Transitions, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O.
Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: frantzeskaki@fsw.eur.nl (N. Frantzeskaki), loorbach@fsw.eur.nl (D. Loorbach).

0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.05.004
 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301 1293

[8–11], and in the mobility system [12–14]. An area so far barely touched upon in the field of transition research is the issue of
infrastructures and the role they play in facilitating or blocking any (desired) societal transitions. In this paper we take the
perspective of societal transitions to link up to the field of studies into changes in infrasystems. In addition to this, we will employ
the term infrasystem as a special type of societal system that includes both the physical component that is the infrastructure, and
the institutions regulating and managing it.
We focus on three different types of infrasystems in particular, water, energy and mobility, in which it seems clear that the
dominating ideas on how the services provided by such infrasystems should be maintained are changing and alternatives (in both
designs and management) are becoming available. There is much insight into the nature of these infrasystems, what the dominant
patterns of response to change and to demand are, and how they can be translated into ideas or even guidelines for management.
However, in the infrastructure literature so far, the emphasis has been put on gradual improvement of existing infrasystems (in
transitions' jargon: optimization), as opposed to the question how infrasystems might behave in the context of fundamental
change. For example, the replacement of one infrasystem by another or a fundamental shift in how an infrasystem is utilized and
managed may be responses of infrasystem's change in the context of societal transitions. In this paper, we conceptualize a
transition in infrasystems or infrasystem transition as a fundamental change in the institutional component and in the design of
infrasystems (referring to the physical component of infrasystems).
A key question that drives us in this paper is whether insight in ‘what’ actually changes in infrasystems could inform better
transition management strategies. Our basic premise is that there is constant co-evolution between infrasystems and their societal
context. Co-evolution of infrasystems and societal context means that societal preferences, norms, expectations, and practices are
influencing the development of new technologies, adaptations in infrastructures, actual management and operations, and vice
versa. We start from the observation that societal transitions and infrasystem transitions share a number of similar characteristics:
(a) they are complex and consist of many, interrelated elements; (b) they need to be analyzed and researched on a very long-term
horizon (decades or more) given that their development and change-dynamics take a long time to materialize; (c) they experience
changes that are non-linear, i.e. periods or rapid change and innovation are alternated with periods of relative stability; and (d)
their long-term development is inherently uncertain.
From the perspective of transitions as fundamental changes in societal systems, the role and response of infrasystems have
hardly been thought through in both the transitions as well as in the infrastructures research fields, besides being mentioned as
key component in creating stability and development in societal systems [144, p.10–11][15]. In areas such as energy, mobility,
health-care or food provision, infrasystems have been developed over a period of decades, that were optimized to fulfill societal
demands in the most effective and efficient way. This relative stability and optimization we argue is increasingly pressured by a
combination of changes in demands towards a sustainable infrasystem – if possible – and emerging innovations and novelties. A
striking example is the debate on smart energy grids [16], but also about smart mobility infrasystems (e.g. intelligent transport
systems [17]). In these examples novel system designs start to compete more and more seriously with the existing configurations.
In this paper we explore whether infrastructures, with their own long-term logic, management and structure, are inhibitors or
facilitators of societal transitions and whether insight in ‘what’ actually changes in infrasystems could inform better transition
management strategies. More specifically, the key questions addressed in this paper are the following:

• How do infrasystems respond to change?

• What can transition management offer to infrastructure planners and regulators towards designing adaptive infrastructures?

We draw from literature on infrasystems to distinguish between different types and their roles in the provision of services and
societal demands. The analytical framework – we developed based on this – will enable us to position infrasystems within the
context of societal transitions. An interesting hypothesis is for example that the thinking about infrasystem change differs for
different infrasystems. We will illustrate this by drawing similarities between three different infrasystems: energy, water and
mobility.
After this we explore the different ways in which infrasystems respond to change. More specifically, the ways in which the
infrastructural aspects are framed within the context of different transitions will be researched. Our starting point is that the
response of infrasystems varies depending on their type: distributive, accumulative or communicative system following Jonsson's
typology of infrasystems ([18] p.2).
Finally, we will try to capitalize on the understanding of the response of infrasystems to change by deriving guidelines for
infrasystem planners using the transition management approach. Infrasystems are special types of societal systems that
contemplate characteristics of complex large-scale social-technological systems [15] (complex with systemic uncertainties) and
face persistent problems that challenge conventional command-and-control management approaches. We argue that transition
management as a new approach for governance of complex systems could offer new insights or at least aid the exploration of new
ideas for infrasystem planning and development.

2. Role of infrasystems in transitions

Infrasystems are large-scale systems, capital-intensive and have a long life cycle [19] [20]. Infrasystems are multifaceted
complex systems [21], they consist of interlinked components (physical component, institutional setting and management
component); operate under uncertainty regarding future demands and they involve a large number of actors (users, planners and/
or owners and regulators) that have diverse objectives, resources and strategies to achieve their objectives. Infrasystems serve
1294 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301

societal demands and create new demands in return. Infrasystems are critical for the welfare and operation of a society since they
ensure and provide utility services such as energy supply, communication, mobility and drinking water.
Existing persistent problems such as resource depletion, congestion and urban pollution, create pressure on existing
infrasystems and (may) result in loss of amenity for societal actors. From the viewpoint of an infrasystem user, persistent problems
are signs of deficiencies or in broader terms, pathologies of existing infrasystems; that in turn result in questioning their
performance and capacity to accommodate (changing) societal demands. From the standpoint of an infrasystem planner,
persistent problems are signals of either outdating of the design (societies change, demands change) or ineffectiveness (cannot serve
the demand) or incompatibility (use changes, cannot function in present form).

2.1. Infrasystems' interplay as an emergent response to change

For investigating the role of infrasystems in societal transitions, the interplay of their physical component (infrastructures)
with other infrastructrues or other users is an important dimension to start with. Following [19, p.162], there are three interplay
modes: competition, interdependence, and joint-use. An interplay mode refers to the way an infrastructure is utilized so as to
serve one or more societal demands. The physical component of the infrasystem (infrastructure) accommodates the interplay, and
the involvement of the institutions regulating it ensues (or may ensue). Consistently, we hence refer to interplay modes that take
place in infrasystems.
The interplays are the mechanisms that underlie immanent infrasystem dynamics that add to the dynamics of change (in the
context of societal transitions). The interplays concern the dynamics an infrasystem exerts in the absence of external pressure for
change. Consequently, every interplay mode positions infrasystems differently in societal transitions due to the diversity of
operations and dynamics every interplay mode produces.
More specifically, competition of supplementary infrasystems can be a stimulus for technical and economic innovations that
reinforce broader societal innovations; that could scale-up to a transition. Competition may also result in a decline of an
infrasystem leading to a system break-down [19, p.159]. An example is the development and expansion of railway infrastructure
to compete with aviation sector and to drive travelers towards inland transportation such as the High Speed Train in Western
Europe. Interdependence refers to infrasystems that have complementary functions hence producing synergies. Additionally,
interdependence sustains co-evolution: the change or development of one infrasystem translates into and enforces change and/or
development of the interdependent infrasystem. Examples of infrasystem co-evolution due to interdependence include the
railway and telegraph infrasystems, and the water management and inland water transportation infrasystems. The third mode of
interplay is the joint-use. Joint-use or co-utilization of infrasystems refers to the use of an infrasystem for fulfillment of different
functions. Joint-use of infrasystems allows for adaptation of existing infrasystems to changes on the demand in the long-run. An
example concerns the joint-use of wind farm pylons for lighting or for docking or anchoring fish nets of aquaculture structures in
Germany (for off-shore wind farms) [22]. Joint-use is viewed as the mode of interplay to direct alternative designs and uses of
infrasystems under the condition of continuous societal change.
The modes of interplay of infrasystems aid our understanding of the role of infrasystems in transitions. Kaijser [19] in his
historical analysis of infrasystem development presents the interplays as emergent response mechanisms of infrasystems when
serving societal demands. Building on this conceptualization, we perceive interplays of infrasystems to be the mechanisms that
underlie the immanent dynamics of infrasystems and yield the complexity existing in infrasystem operation, development and
change. In a context of societal transitions, different modes of interplay may emerge for infrasystems to respond to or
accommodate change.

2.2. The dual role of infrasystems in societal transitions

Infrasystems can be at the same time barriers to and the incubators for radical change. They do however, based on their
characteristics, have a tendency to promote incremental change; the sunk-costs, the social dependencies and the impossibility for
a sudden shift to a completely new and functional infrasystem makes infrastructural change a high risk activity. Existing
infrasystems promote economic growth according to numerous studies that show the effect of infrasystems in the growth of
regional and national economies (in the form of GDP correlations) [23,24]. Infrasystems though have to be flexible in design to
accommodate growth [20, p.28] [25, p. 2–3]. Infrasystem development or expansion may be a means for growth and change
through changing users' practices and routines. In this way infrasystems serve as means for gradual change.
Infrasystems are difficult to change fundamentally, but they do however incrementally change and adapt to changing
demands: use is optimized; throughput made more efficient, technologies improved, and so on. The transition management
approach can be used to reflect upon the question how infrasystem change can be used to accelerate or direct ongoing societal
transition dynamics and how vice versa the societal transition context can be used to accelerate infrasystem change. In this section
we elaborated on the role of infrasystems as potential facilitators for changes in users' practices and routines; albeit infrasystems'
(tendency for) incremental change. We also shed light on emergent (immanent) responses of infrasystems towards serving and
accommodating demands in the form of three interplay modes: competition, interdependency and joint-use.
The next step of our exploration of the relation between infrasystems and societal transitions is to relate different types of
infrasystems to their response to change. In such a context, pressure on the infrasystem to change its performance increases and
alternatives become increasingly plausible. The response of infrasystems under pressures for change is elaborated in the following
section.
 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301 1295

3. Response of infrasystems in the face of change

Jonsson [18] categorized infrasystems based on the architecture of their physical component that directly reflects their
operation in distributive, accumulative and communicative types or architectures (Box 1). We argue that the responses of
infrasystems in the face of societal transitions also depend on their architecture [18]. We find important to understand and explore
the relationship between infrasystem architectures and (the respective) responses to change in order to identify different possible
transition management strategies through which infrasystem change could co-evolve with fundamental shifts in social demands
and use. Although we cannot predict how infrasystems can co-evolve with their context, we can argue that the three different
infrasystem architectures will have significantly different responses and experience different ways of change; thus require
different transition management strategies. The question on infrasystem management will be addressed in the next section.

Box 1
Infrasystem architectures (adopted from [18, p.2]).

The overall architecture of an infrasystem is also characteristic of that infrasystem. Each infrasystem can be described with
one of the following three kinds of architecture:
- Distributive systems have networks housing a flow from a central node to the users via links e.g. electricity, water, radio
and television
- Accumulative systems are systems with the opposite flow direction, that is from the users to a central node e.g. sewer and
waste disposal system; and
- Communicative systems are characterized by a multidirectional flow e.g. mail systems, telecom and transportation
systems.

There are three different ways in which infrasystems may change. Those different ways represent not the process of change but
the end-state of their transitional development. More specifically, infrasystems can change in three different ways (adopted from
[18, p.4]):

(a) through system improvements (that is the “enhancement of one of a type of system or system technology at a time”).
System improvements aim at improving the efficiency of the infrasystem. System improvements can be achieved either by a
design change or by the introduction of a new design or by merging of different designs (producing of hybrids). These
include some of the interventions infrasystem planners can make so as to realize system improvements. System
improvement is a product of top-down intervention.
(b) through system synergies (that is the “enhancement of the production of infrasystem services through coordination of the
different systems or between system and the built environment”). System synergies refer to rearrangements or
modifications of infrasystem's components that aim at overall efficiency improvement. One way to achieve system synergies
is scheduling [26, p.73], where the frequency of using the same infrasystem (by different user groups) is scheduled in a
different way aiming at improving the time efficiency of infrasystems.
(c) through social innovations (that is “the adoption of new ways of satisfying existing needs”). Social innovations may include
“new demand-forming processes”, “new ways of thinking” and/or “new forms of interplay between interest groups”. Social
innovations refer to radical bottom-up changes in infrasystems and respond to alternative designs and uses of infrasystems.
Social innovations can be supported but not created and can be the side effects of both system improvements and system
synergies. Social innovations thus can be steered and/or emerge.

The different infrasystem architectures may experience either of these ways of change. Historically, system improvements and
system synergies dominate, and social innovation plays a minor role. We argue that possibly the required and/or possible
pathways the different infrasystems might go through to satisfy future demands will be a combination of all three ways. An
interesting thought experiment is to try to conceptualize the different possible pathways the different infrasystem architectures
might go through using system improvements, system synergies and social innovation. We consider a further optimization as well
as a fundamental shift to a different infrasystem as two possible infrasystem pathways (Table 1).

Table 1
Possible pathways of different infrasystem architectures and infrasystems.

Possible pathways

Infrasystem architecture Infrasystem Optimization Fundamental shift

Distributive Energy Centralization and efficiency improvements Decentralization and alternative sources
Accumulative Water management Capacity increase Alternative design(s)
Waste management
Communicative Mobility Efficiency improvements and capacity increase Alternative use and designs
1296 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301

Distributive infrasystems may face the dilemma between centralization and decentralization in the context of transitions. The
typical example of an energy system shows the tensions between centralization and efficiency improvement via system
improvements that follow the optimization pathway; versus decentralization and diversity on infrasystem units/designs that
follow the fundamental shift pathway. In principle distributive systems could break-down or compartmentalize into smaller
systems striving for decentralization of supply–demand.
Accumulative infrasystems might strive for alternative designs and demand strategies so as to increase of capacity in the midst
of transitions. The typical example of accumulative infrasystem such as (solid) waste treatment system shows the tensions
between either capacity increase via system improvements and/or system synergies that follow the optimization pathway; versus
demand curbing and system innovations via system synergies and social innovations that follow the fundamental shift pathway.
Examples of capacity increase are the enlargement of waste treatment facilities and/or of alternative ways to accommodate the
input flow such as creating waste deposits or storing facilities prior or post-treatment. Examples of demand curbing and
alternative design include the principle of source minimization for wastewater or solid waste treatment systems, and the strategy
of integration of run-off and surface water bodies with the landscape for water treatment systems.
Communicative infrasystems may strive for increasingly more efficiency or fundamentally different use of existing and
alternative designs in the face of transitions. A typical example of communicative infrasystem such as the mobility system shows
the tension between either efficiency improvement via system improvements that follow the optimization pathway; versus
alternative use and design via system synergies and/or social innovations that follow the fundamental shift pathway. Efficiency of
communicative infrasystems can be improved by either better use of existing designs or by enabling joint-use (so as to serve
different demands) or by allowing for secondary use of existing designs. Alternative use and design appear as a desirable outcome
of innovations within the mobility sector albeit less likely to appear.
Both pathways can contribute to the improvement of infrasystems and to the ensuring of social welfare via safeguarding
infrasystems provision. The two pathways represent not the process of change but the end-state of the infrasystems development.
The optimization pathway includes marginal changes towards improving existing designs and institutions that may lead to a
continuous empowerment of the existing infrasystem. In line with this, the optimization pathway may develop towards either a
potential system lock-in – e.g. the continuous enlargement of highways and transportation lines for mobiles results in
empowerment of automobility demand that (may) leads to a lock-in of the mobility system – or a slow-developing transition that
takes place with marginal changes that accumulate to a slow radical system change — e.g. the marginal changes in the naval
transportation system especially for trade carriers have accumulated, and consequently, resulted in a radically new system in
comparison with the naval transportation system existing in the first half of the twentieth century.

4. Implications for infrasystem transition governance

Infrasystem change is a slow process that requires careful handling. Drivers of infrasystems change can be either system
pathologies (a concept consistent with but broader than reverse salients [15, p. 13–14]) such as cost overruns in planning [27] or in
operation, incidents of corruption and lack of transparency between government and private operators as manifestations of ill-
management [28], ineffectiveness to satisfy demands in form of congestion and/or of energy block-outs; or accidents such as the
Chernobyl accident that took place in energy infrasystem. Those drivers of change in combination with the experience of
persistent problems quest for a change in infrasystems.
In face of an emerging demand for change, infrasystems experience pressure for systemic improvements, and change. The
process of change in infrasystems includes change in planning and regulating cultures and practices, change in operating practices
and change in the physical dimension of infrasystems by either expanding or developing new designs as well as change in use
patterns and preferences. Those changes though are the responses of the different actors within the infrasystem when they
experience pressure for change. The different actors (regulators, planners, users) devise different strategies and employ different
resources so as to conserve their benefits and achieve their objectives.
We define a transition in infrasystems or infrasystem transition as a fundamental change in the institutional component [19,
p.161], and in the design of infrasystems (referring to the physical component of infrasystems). In the process of infrasystem
transition, the interdependencies of the multiple actors and the co-evolution between the infrasystems and their context require
careful handling and a management approach that does not devise command-and-control tools. Transition management was
developed explicitly to deal with complex problems and processes that show co-evolutionary processes of fundamental change
[29]. So far, transition management has primarily focused on stimulating changes in thinking, innovation and organization related
to policy [29–32]. Regarding infrasystems, it appears clear that the specific characteristics of infrasystems and the different
infrasystem architectures and their possible pathways need to be taken into consideration when developing transition strategies
for infrasystems transitions. We try to focus on translating the basic principles underlying transition management (transition
tenets) into practical ideas for regulators, planners and users of infrasystems, while realizing that these are just exploratory ideas
that will need further theoretical development as well as empirical verification [30].

4.1. Transition management principles applied to infrasystem transitions

Building upon complex system theory, governance studies and exploratory action research, transition management offers a
management approach for organizing and coordinating innovation in society. The basic premise of transition management is
about creating space (institutional, technological, financial, and regulatory space) for social innovation, as a strategy to develop
 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301 1297

alternatives to existing practices and systems. Transition management can be seen as a suitable approach for drawing insights and
working guidelines for infrasystem planners, and regulators given that infrasystems are complex in nature and are important part
of societal transitions in energy, water and mobility infrasystems; in which transition management has already been applied in the
Netherlands [5,7,10–12,31–33]. In this section, we will present six potential transition strategies for infrasystem transitions based
on the (six) basic tenets of transition management [34] and considering both infrasystem interplays and infrasystem architectures'
pathways.

4.1.1. The dynamics of the system create feasible and non-feasible means for governance
Given that the responses of infrasystems to change depend on their architecture (Box 1, Table 1), every infrasystem allows for
different strategies as means of intervention that planners and regulators can employ. The transition strategies need to be in tune
with the specific characteristics of the particular infrasystem as well as with its current and expected dynamics (that are
manifested in the form of interplay modes). At the same time, infrasystem planners have to construct designs that may allow
infrasystems to adapt and respond to changes in society as well as to emerging alternatives.
When dealing with distributive infrasystems, infrasystem planners need to plan for infrasystems to be able to serve both the
short-term and long-term demand. Infrasystem planners have to also consider that a demand growth in distributive infrasystems
may be satisfied by decentralization. When dealing with distributive infrasystems, planners have to keep in mind that those
systems tend to create economies of scale and economies of reach that require in return increased capacity. Systems' designs that
can adapt to an increased utilization of existing capacity are favorable. When dealing with distributive infrasystems that are
diagnosed with saturation symptoms (cannot serve an increasing demand), regulators can push for their decentralization or
compartmentalization so as to avoid reliability deterioration. In this context, strategies that enable a fundamental shift of
distributive infrasystems are at quest (Table 1). An example of such a regulatory intervention is the new Energy Policy for Europe
of the European Commission [35] that promotes the arrangement of distributed (with the potential of autonomy and autarky)
energy networks (and markets) that are monitored by decentralized energy agencies. As the debate on sustainability of energy
infrasystems is still ongoing and undecided in terms of whether centralized or decentralized options might be better, the key
strategy for planners is to build in flexibility and experiment with different designs and options.
When dealing with accumulative infrasystems, planners may consider innovative designs to deal with the flow in a distributed
fashion. A starting example comes from the wastewater management infrasystems. Instead of experiencing an accumulation of the
wastewater in the wastewater facility plans, an installation of primary treatment facilities (such as screening and biological
treatment-bioreactors) at a regional scale and then transferring the outflow to centralized treatment plans. In this way, a reduction
of the input for centralized treatment plants is achieved [36,37]. This indicates that planners have to keep an eye on research and
technological solutions that are based on simple principles such as “treatment at the source”. An example in the waste sector might
be the idea of resource responsibility of producers and the cradle-to-cradle concept [38]. When dealing with accumulative
infrasystems, regulators need to keep in mind that interventions need to target the curbing of the demand and the promotion of
new methods for utilization of existing size. For a fundamental shift in accumulative infrasystems hence, strategies like taxation
(Pigou taxes in consumption, the principle “the polluter pays”) or procurement methods that aim at the conservation or reuse of
consumption units may result in demand curbing. In addition, new designs might be explored to deal in a more adaptive way with
increasing resource flows. The example here is the approach of ‘Living with water’ in the Netherlands. A shift in the management of
infrasystems may also be a means to tackle their response in the face of societal change. An example concerns the water
management system where the transition is initiated by a paradigm shift: from command-and-control to adaptive management
paradigm. As [39] (cited by [40]) argued for water management infrasystems, “a transition is under way to a soft path that
complements centralized physical infrastructure with lower cost community-scale systems, decentralized and open decision-
making, water markets and equitable pricing, application of efficient technology, and environmental protection.”
When dealing with communicative infrasystems, efficiency targeting measures are under consideration. Planners and
regulators of communicative infrasystems might consider new scheduling plans and/or employment of new technology so as to
improve the use of existing infrasystems. Infrasystem planners may consider system improvements as a step to radically change
and respond to the ‘natural tendency’ of the communicative infrasystems for efficiency improvement. More specifically for
mobility infrasystems, apart from unit improvements and innovations (unit can be any type and design of vehicle) [8], Intelligent
Transportation Systems may lead to the desirable efficiency of the mobility infrasystem [17,18,21, p.4665]. Changes in the
management approach and in the use patterns of mobility infrasystem may also lead to fundamental shifts. Examples of
interventions and changes that concern the management practices and the usage patterns of mobility are also given by [8,41].

4.1.2. Long-term thinking (at least 25 years) as a framework for shaping short-term policy in the context of persistent societal problems
Since an infrasystem's life cycle exceeds one generation, the planning horizon needs to be consistent hence long-term. Long-
term thinking is a condition to be considered by infrasystem planners. Long-term thinking suggests that infrasystem designs need
to be adaptive to future generations' demands and flexible in accommodating secondary uses, and responsive in satisfying the
demand for which they are developed. All infrasystem architectures require long-term thinking for their planning.
The identification of next generations' demands can be conveyed with vision drawing exercises or trend-break analyses or
other methods. However the specific definition of what will be considered sustainable in the future is always uncertain and
ambiguous, which implies that flexibility needs to become part of infrasystem planning. This ‘flexibility’ relates both to the need
for adaptive capacity as to creating space for experiments and alternatives.
1298 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301

Regulators should strive to preserve the demands and needs of future generations by sustaining conservation of environmental
utilities in combination with infrasystem planning and development. Infrasystems are capital-intensive, meaning not only
monetary but also natural capital. A basic criterion for infrasystem development should thus be a continuous pressure on
minimizing impact; on resource use, on spatial development, on social factors and on economics. Consequently, infrasystem
planning would require legislative frameworks which enable a better balancing of physical, social, economic and ecological factors,
responsive to societal demands and integrated with environment in the midst of continuous societal change.

4.1.3. Designs should be flexible and adjustable at the system level

According to [20, p. 89–90] an infrasystem “is generally associated with one single main function but often allows for beneficial
secondary services”. Infrasystem planners need to identify potential secondary uses of new infrasystems and allow for flexible
designs. Infrasystem planners have to learn and be aware of infrasystem interplays as emergent (immanent) patterns of
infrasystem dynamics (in the absence of pressure for change) that can be the basis for the way infrasystems' response to change.
An example may be the enabling or stimulating of joint-use of infrasystems. In this vein, a transition arena can be established for
the identification and integration of users' interests for both primary and secondary services of an infrasystem.
There might be different designs that can compete with each other to update or establish an infrasystem. A selection of the
most suitable design depends on social and economic criteria that have been established by the involved actors at the time of the
planning and decision-making. This means that there is a need for mechanisms through which users of infrasystems are enabled to
consistently and responsibly communicate the needs, interests and stakes to planners and regulators. In practice, this implies
infrasystem strategies that keep open options and are iteratively developed in interaction with evolving innovative practices.

4.1.4. Creating space for (radical) innovation in transition arenas and experiments
Niches comprise newly introduced systems that enjoy acceptance by users at a small scale. Niches may be alternative and/or
innovative designs or uses of infrasystems. There are two complementary ways to create niches: pilot projects and transition
experiments. Both ways are tools of policy makers that have their theoretical underpinnings in the evidence based policy making
approach [42]. Pilot projects are small scale policy projects that aim at testing acceptance and effectiveness of a policy measure in a
locale with specific characteristics [43]. Transition experiments depart from process management and participatory policy making
approaches. Transition experiments are small scale policy projects with a focus on actors' interplays that aim at testing learning
and diffusion of new ideas and practices. Policy pilot projects and transition experiments can be used to enhance learning and
diffuse new ideas and practices. Technology pilots as small scale projects to test the performance and fitness of a new infrasystem
design at a small scale can also be employed.
The regulative framework has to enable and not burden the development and existence of niches. At the same time, regulators
have to provide support in form of standardization and/or legitimization (e.g. introduction of new directives) for infrasystem
niches (either in the form of policy pilots, or technology pilots, or transition experiments). Institutional changes may concern the
change of ownership of public utilities [44,45, p.169] and/or the removal of regulative frontiers in markets. The regulators need to
ensure the consistency between the regulative and legislative frameworks and the usage of infrasystems focusing on its design,
technological components and services [44].

4.1.5. Focus on frontrunners

Infrasystems have a tendency to promote incremental change, or simply following an optimization pathway (Table 1).
Infrasystem planners' main concern is sustaining the existing infrasystem; whereas effort is not invested in naturally developing
alternatives. To at least explore such alternatives in the light of the problems associated with some infrasystems, space needs to be
created for entrepreneurs. In practice, this implies bringing entrepreneurs or frontrunners together so that they are able to
collectively reflect upon future development, to connect innovations to existing systems and to co-develop new uses or designs.
Strategies could stimulate this by developing and supporting networks or transition arenas including frontrunners and/or
entrepreneurs in business, government and consumers.
Given the long-term nature of infrasystem planning, it seems inevitable that more space should be created for experiments and
alternative designs so as to learn and improve over time. We could for example think about setting or enabling technology pilots so
as to experiment with new designs in specific contexts or jointly to existing infrasystem at small scale. An example is the designs of
floating houses that have been first tested and then installed in Maasbommel in the Netherlands where new designs have been
used for those amphibian infrasystems.

4.1.6. Radical change in incremental steps

Redirecting or transforming infrasystems implies that changes in the size, the use, the design and the institutional component
may result in a change of infrasystems. As already discussed in a previous section, infrasystems can change in three different ways:
through system improvements, system synergies and social innovation [18, p.4].
Regulators can take actions to change the institutional setting of infrasystems. In this way, institutions may improve their
performance towards regulating and managing infrasystems; hence such intervention falls under the prism of system
improvement. Institutions need to be effective thus rules need to change so as to address new demands. An institutional change in
the form of deregulation or privatization not only changes institutional performance and fitness but also infrasystems' interplay.
For example, the deregulation and liberalization of the energy sector in the Netherlands, compartmentalized the power grid into
three interconnected networks: the energy supply network, the transmitting network and the provider-network. This changed the
 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301 1299

architecture of the energy infrasystem from distributive to distributive (for providing and transmitting) and communicative (for
energy supply). Consider house owners with on-roof photovoltaics to be energy suppliers in some instances – since they can feed
the energy surplus into the network – and energy users in other instances and demand energy from the network. In this way, a
shift from distributive to communicative architecture is realized in the energy supply network. The division of large infrastructure
networks into smaller loosely connected ones may improve dependence but requires careful regulatory and monitoring handling
[26, p.72].

5. Reflection and discussion on infrasystem transitions

One of the main thoughts on dealing with infrasystem transitions is to start to think about strategies to increase flexibility,
variety, innovative capacity and adaptability. In light of sustainability transitions it is necessary to move away from existing
pathologies towards yet unknown configurations, technologies and designs. The mere fact that there can never be ultimate future
designs (either radically different or based on existing ones) that will ensure sustainability forever, and that such alternative
designs can never be implemented or developed in a straightforward and top-down manner asks for more learning-by-doing and
doing-by-learning strategies in which long-term systemic innovation is a central aim. Based on past experiences, cost overruns
and reduced utilization of infrasystems are the frequently reported pathologies (especially) evidenced in the mobility
infrasystems according to [27]. Standardization of procurement, auctioning, and monitoring methods and a comprehensive
regulative framework concerning an infrasystem's life cycle (from design, to auction, to implement, to operate, and to maintain)
could be drawn that may handle these pathologies.
The different infrasystem architectures (Box1, Table 1) touched upon in this paper need different types of strategies and
analytical approaches. We argue that rather than perceiving infrasystem complexity as a problem, it should be possible to take the
inherent complexity and contextuality of infrasystems as a starting point for developing transition oriented strategies.
Consequently, this will require a reorientation of an infrasystem planning approach towards enabling a fundamental shift
(pathway) (Table 1) contrary to the dominant approach of marginal efficiency improvements. Arguments of sunk-costs and
existing regulation that may favor optimization (orienting infrasystem development towards an optimization pathway, as
presented in Table 1) hurdle the development of competing designs, and in turn, deter fundamental shifts of infrasystems.
In addition to this, it may appear hard to imagine how to experiment with existing infrasystems. We however come across an
increasing number of examples of both technological and policy oriented experiments and pilots. Examples are the development
of floating communities or even cities in the Netherlands, newly built areas without connection to the natural gas network, novel
light rail transport lines, and even the first urban areas with smart grids or waste heat infrastructure. These experiments are
developed bottom-up, are often pushed by a coalition of frontrunners and entrepreneurs from local governments, companies and
scientists, and struggle to materialize in an unfavorable institutional and regulatory setting. There is no integrated strategy behind
these experiments, let alone a strategy to systematically learn from the experiences in these different areas to think about a large-
scale infrasystem change.
These experiments however seem to indicate that there is a paradigm shift in infrasystem planning and usage in the areas of
energy, water and mobility, which is increasing the space for experiments and opens up the debate upon radical changes in
infrasystems. Transition research has found that in the so-called predevelopment phase, often a paradigm shift takes place at the
societal level (from a phase of problem recognition towards a convergence about future direction and expectations) which
provides the preconditions for a shift in structures (such as infrasystem designs) to take place [5]. This is most visible in the water
management area where the paradigm shift towards living with water is rapidly leading to new types of water infrastructures
(including floating city ideas, expanding the space for rivers, ecological floodplains, green roof programs and so on) [5,46].

6. Concluding remarks

We explored how the transition management approach could be applied in the context of infrasystem change. It seems that in
the areas touched upon in this paper, the issue of infrasystem redesign will emerge to be at the heart of the sustainability debate. As
we witness the development of new paradigms in these areas combined with the external societal pressure for more sustainability,
resource efficiency and economic effectiveness, and (the emergence of) viable alternatives, a more fundamental debate upon how
we could deal with infrasystems in transitions seems inevitable. This would require not only further interdisciplinary theoretical
exploration, but also cooperation between different scientific, policy and business communities. As we argued, there should be an
increasing focus on experimenting on a real-life scale with alternative designs. In the Netherlands, such experiments are being
made possible through new legislation which creates regulatory as well as physical space (Dutch Crisis and Recovery Law/Crisis en
Herstelwet, EK no. 32.127, in Dutch). Under this law, experiments with floating communities are enabled in the Cityharbors area in
Rotterdam. So far, these spaces have often not been consciously utilized to explore alternative designs.
For enabling infrasystem innovations, we argue that infrasystem planners need to also consider transition experiments in which
mechanisms for learning and innovation creation are being practiced. We suggest practical experimentation and policy innovations for
infrasystems to be included in research agendas as well as in planning agendas; exactly because of the complexity and uncertainty of
infrasystems change. Given that transitions are limitedly explored in the infrasystems literature and infrasystems poorly explored in
transitions literature, there is a large area for scientific innovation and exploration with a very high societal relevance.
1300 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301

Some of the key issues we have identified in this paper that seem interesting and valuable for further (applied) research
concern:

- the different infrasystem architectures and their specific characteristics and dynamics in the form of both interplay modes and
change modes (synergies, interdependence and innovations)
- the governance strategies aiming at infrasystem transitions
- different roles of actors related to different infrasystem architectures
- how to learn systematically from experiments in different infrasystems.

Concluding, these are central but also not exhaustive questions. We do however think that the line of thought presented in this
paper and the transition management approach offer interesting insights when analyzing infrasystem transitions and developing
transition strategies. In itself, the topic of infrasystem transitions and how it relates to broader societal transitions seem highly
relevant and need to be further explored within the transitions field.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Els van Daalen for her insightful comments and feedback on earlier versions of the paper and
Pr. Karel Mulder for his feedback and help in improving the current analysis. The present paper is a product of research that has been
conducted with the support of the KSI II.2 Research Subprogram “The dynamics of transitions” (www.ksinetwork.nl). An earlier
version of the present paper had been presented in the International Conference on Infrastructure Systems (INFRA2008) — Building
Networks for a Brighter Future, IEEE, 10–12 November 2008, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (www.nginfra.nl/conference2008).

References

[1] N. Frantzeskaki, H. de Haan, Transitions: two steps from theory to policy, Futures 41 (2009) 593–606.
[2] J. Rotmans, R. Kemp, M. van Asselt, More evolution than revolution, Foresight 3 (1) (2001) 1–17.
[3] F.W. Geels, Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
72 (2005) 681–696.
[4] C.A. Wilson, Policy regimes and policy change, J. Public Policy 20 (3) (2000) 247–274.
[5] R. Van der Brugge, J. Rotmans, Towards transition management of European water resources, Water Resour. Manag. 21 (2007) 249–267.
[6] S. Parto, D. Loorbach, A. Lansink, R. Kemp, in: S. Parto, B. Herbert-Copley (Eds.), Transitions and Institutional Change: The Case of the Dutch Waste Subsystem,
United Nations University Press, New York, 2007.
[7] C.M. Hendriks, J. Grin, Contextualizing reflexive governance: the politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability, J. Environ. Policy Plann. 9 (3–4) (2007)
333–350.
[8] B. van Bree, G.P.J. Verbong, G.J. Kramer, A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
77 (4) (2010) 529–540.
[9] J.C.J.M. van den Bergh, F.R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the Transition to Renewable Energy, Theory and Practice from Local, Regional and Macro Perspectives,
1rst ed., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2008.
[10] D. Loorbach, R. van der Brugge, M. Taanman, Governance in the energy transition: practice of transition management in the Netherlands, Int. J. Environ.
Technol. Manag. 9 (2–3) (2008) 294–315.
[11] F. Kern, A. Smith, Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands, Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4093–4103.
[12] J. Schot, R. Hoogma, B. Elzen, Strategies for shifting technological systems, the case of the automobile system, Futures 24 (10) (1994) 1060–1076.
[13] J. Kohler, L. Whitmarsh, B. Nykvist, M. Shilperoord, N. Bergman, A. Haxeltine, A transitions model for sustainable mobility, Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009) 2985–2995.
[14] E. Ostrom, L. Schroeder, S. Wynne, Institutional incentives and sustainable development, Westview Press, Infrastructure policies in perspective, 1993.
[15] R. Mayntz, T.P. Hughes, The Development of Large Technical Systems, Westview Press, 1988.
[16] G.P.J. Verbong, F.W. Geels, Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change THIS
ISSUE.
[17] V. Marchau, W. Walker, R. van Duin, An adaptive approach to implementing innovative urban transport solutions, Trans. Policy 15 (6) (2008) 405–412.
[18] D.K. Jonsson, The nature of infrasystem services, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE (2005) 2–8.
[19] A. Kaijser, The dynamics of infrasystems, lessons from history, Proceedings of the 6th International Summer Academy on Technology Studies — Urban
Infrastructure in Transition, 2004, pp. 153–166.
[20] D.K. Jonsson, Sustainable Infrasystem synergies: a conceptual framework, J. Urban Technol. 7 (3) (2000) 81–104.
[21] D. Roos, F. Moavenzadeh, R. de Neufville, S. Connors, The design and development of next generation infrastructrue systems, 2004 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Theme: Impacts of Emerging Cybernetics and Human-Machine Systems, October 10–13, 2004, 2004,
pp. 4662–4666, The Hague, The Netherlands.
[22] B.H. Buck, G. Krause, H. Rosenthal, Extensive open ocean aquaculture development within wind farms in Germany: the prospect of offshore co-management
and legal constraints, Ocean Coast. Manag. 47 (3–4) (2004) 95–122.
[23] L.-H. Röller, L. Waverman, Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: a simultaneous approach, Am. Econ. Rev. 91 (2001) 909–923.
[24] J.G. Fernald, Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivity, Am. Econ. Rev. 89 (1999) 619–638.
[25] The World Bank, World Development Report, Infrastructure for Development, The World Bank, Washington, D.C, 1994.
[26] M. ven der Mandele, W. Walker, S. Bexelius, Policy development for infrastructure networks: concepts and Ideas, J. Infrastruct. Syst. (2006) 69–76.
[27] B. Flyvbjerg, M.K. Skamris-Holm, S.L. Buhl, How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects, Transp. Rev. 23 (1) (2003)
71–88.
[28] G. Clarke, C. Xhu, Privatization, competition and corruption: how characteristics of bribe takers and payers affect bribes to utilities, J. Public Econ. 9–10 (2004)
2067–2097.
[29] J. Rotmans, D. Loorbach, Complexity and transition management, J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (2) (2009) 184–196.
[30] J.P. Voss, A. Smith, J. Grin, Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management, Policy Sci. 42 (2009) 275–302.
[31] F. Kern, M. Howlett, Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector, Policy Sci. 42 (2009) 391–408.
[32] F. Avelino, Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects, Policy Sci. 42 (2009) 369–390.
[33] C.M. Hendriks, On inclusion and network governance: the democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions, Public Admin. 86 (4) (2008) 1009–1031.
[34] D. Loorbach, Transition management, New mode of governance for sustainable development, PHD Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, International
Books, 2007.
 N. Frantzeskaki, D. Loorbach / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77 (2010) 1292–1301 1301

[35] European Commission, 20 20 by 2020, Europe's climate change opportunity, Comminication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 23.1.2008, COM(2008) 30, 2008.
[36] G. Tchobanoglous, L. Ruppe, H. Leverenz, J. Darby, Decentralized wastewater management: challenges and opportunities for the twenty-first century, Water
Sci. Technol.: Water Supply 4 (1) (2004) 95–102.
[37] N. Tadkaew, M. Sivakumar, L.D. Nghiem, Membrane bioreactor technology for decentralized wastewater treatment and reuse, Int. J. Water 3 (4) (2007)
368–380.
[38] W. McDonough, M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1rst edNorth Point Press, 2002.
[39] P.H. Gleick, Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21rst century, Science 302 (2003) 524–528.
[40] C. Pahl-Worst, Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change, Water Resour. Manag. 21 (2007) 49–62.
[41] F.J. Huétink, A. van der Vooren, F. Alkemade, Initial infrastructure development strategies for the transition to sustainable mobility, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change THIS ISSUE.
[42] I. Sanderson, Evaluation, policy learning and evidence based policy making, Public Admin. 8 (1) (2002) 1–22.
[43] H.S.I. Vreugdenhil, J.H. Slinger, W.A.H. Thissen, P.A. Ker Rault, Pilot projects in water management, Ecol. Soc. 15 (2) (2010).
[44] M. Finger, J.P.M. Groenewegen, R.W. Künneke, The quest for coherence between technology and institutions in infrastructures, J. Netw. Ind. 6 (2005)
227–259.
[45] W.J.M. Kickert, Anglo–Saxon public management and European governance: the case of Dutch administrative reforms, in: J.E. Lane (Ed.), Public Sector
Reform, Rationale, Trends and Problems, Sage publications, 1997.
[46] R. van der Graaf, R. Van der Brugge, Transforming water infrastructure by linking water management and urban renewal in Rotterdam, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change THIS ISSUE.

Niki Frantzeskaki has worked as a PhD researcher at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. She is currently working with DRIFT, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, The Netherlands focusing on institutions and policy transitions. She earned an MSc in Engineering and Policy Analysis from Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands and an MSc/BSc in Environmental Engineering from Technical University of Crete, Greece. Her research interests include policy
analysis, policy dynamics, social-ecological systems governance, institutions and transitions. Since her appointment in Erasmus University Rotterdam, she has
been focusing on the intersection of institutions, policy transitions and dynamics for infrastructure systems (energy and water).

Derk Loorbach is a senior researcher and consultant at the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands,
where he received his PhD in June 2007. Central theme in his research is the development of the transition management approach as a new governance-model
based on complex systems' thinking, governance theories and sociology. He is currently involved in various transition arenas, innovation programs and
envisioning practices in areas of urban development, energy, health-care and housing. His research is seen as an example of ‘sustainability science’, combining
fundamental with action research to contribute to sustainable development in practice.

View publication stats