Conceptual insights derived from case studies on ‘emerging transitions’ in farming - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 199

no simple causalities in transitions; instead there are “processes in multiple dimensions and
at different levels which link up with, and reinforce each other ('circular causality')”.
In FarmPath, the aim was not to study completed transitions but current, ongoing
processes that - a priori - seemed to have the potential to initiate transition at a later time
(emerging transitions). The challenge was to select initiatives that had the potential to lead
to radical change; achieved with varying degrees of success. Indeed, when selecting
potential cases, a number of issues arose around the identification of whether an initiative
was in the 'take-off phase', and what would constitute a 'transition'.
Generally, it has proved challenging to identify niches involved in an emerging
transition. The choice of which initiatives to select for study must be made at an early stage
of the research process, and is usually based on limited information. Whilst a niche might a
priori seem promising, upon closer analysis different aspects are revealed that indicate
limitations in niche dynamics, leading to the conclusion that a take-off is unlikely.
Furthermore, whether a niche will successfully navigate the take-off stage and, thus, initiate
a transition, and whether that transition will be realized (or falter) can only be ascertained
with hindsight.
The other challenge is linked to selecting the criteria that differentiate a transition from
marginal change. Indeed, a transition is characterized by radical change at regime level.
When discussing a transition, it is essential to differentiate between radical changes
(fundamental shifts in system logic) and incremental changes (e.g. when the regime adapts
in response to landscape pressure, or when it co-opts a niche). The challenge is that
incremental versus radical change is not a binary (either/or) judgement, as one might lead to
the other. In the context of emerging transitions it is not clear whether observed incremental
changes may coalesce into a radical change. There is a distinct possibility that incremental
changes may accumulate, but not add up to a radical change. The challenge is, then, to
distinguish between radical change and those marginal changes which are part of the on-
going adaptations of the regime (that is changes that do not question fundamental values,
paradigms, social expectations and norms, lifestyles of users, or institutional arrangements
and regulations).
The challenge of identifying transitions is partly linked to the definition of the regime,
(the level of analysis). Indeed, “what looks like a regime shift at one level may be viewed
merely as an incremental change in inputs for a wider regime at another level” (Geels,
2011:31). Thus, defining the regime as the 'agricultural regime' within a region may lead to
the conclusion that the niche being studied cannot be reasonably expected to lead to a
transition in the agricultural regime, whilst missing the fact that the niche does have a
radical impact at a lower spatial scale (e.g. the horticultural sector of the region).
Another analytical challenge is linked to the fact that regimes are understood as
'dynamically stable' in that a regime undergoes change constantly whilst retaining its
fundamental characteristics. Thus, the fact that the regime underwent (radical) change may,
or may not, be linked to the activities of the niche. To ascertain the impact of a niche it
would be helpful to assess the counterfactual situation: how would the regime have evolved
if the niche had not been active, or had been less successful? However, it is not only the
regime that changes over time, the niche does too: through the influence of interactions
with the regime, and through interactions with other niches, such as when enlarging its
network. Assessing the impact of a niche upon a regime, thus, raises the analytical