Conclusions - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 207

'technological niches' are consistently traced back to Rip and Kemp (1998), who
emphasize that niches are 'configurations which work': the 'technology' aspect of the
niche is not limited to physical equipment or machinery but can include new production
methods and ways of working, such as short supply chains. However, to date socio-
technical niches assessed utilizing the MLP have been almost entirely based around
specific physical technologies. The exceptions have primarily been studies within the
agricultural sector, particularly in relation to organic farming (e.g. Belz, 2004; Smith,
2006, 2007). Similarly, in this research we have focused primarily on the configurations
which work (such as farmers' markets, local certification and collaborative actions).
In assessing the case studies presented in this topic, the findings suggest a
'technological bias' within the MLP: conceptual assumptions that are the result of basing
empirical research primarily on physical technology-based transition processes. In this
research, only one of the chapters focused around a physical technology-based niche: on-
farm renewable energy production (Sutherland et al. b, this volume). This cluster of cases
was the most straightforward to assess in terms of applying the MLP concept. The cases
demonstrated clear evidence of niche development and anchoring within the three
regional contexts, with 'translation' of the original purposes of the technologies in
response to the 'window of opportunity' presented by the emerging climate change
agenda. However, in cases without a new physical technology as the focal point for a
transition process, it can be difficult to identify the boundaries of a niche; the processes of
anchoring by the niche; or to differentiate between incremental and transitional regime
change. This was particularly true in the case of lifestyle farming (Pinto-Correia et al. a,
this volume), where the increase in consumption-oriented occupancy of rural land was
clearly evident but difficult to define. Although physical technologies develop and take on
new forms and purposes, associated developments are much simpler to follow than new
market arrangements or forms of collaborative action.
Physical technology-based innovations are also more straightforward to support.
Funding research and development is common practice for governments and industries;
both were important for the development of renewable technologies and the subsequent
mainstreaming of production. Sutherland et al. b (this volume) suggest that in the British
and German cases, governments viewed renewable energy production both as an
economic development tool and as a means of meeting their climate change mitigation
objectives. Targets for production could be clearly identified and assessed, achieving
multiple goals. In contrast, supports for organizational innovations, such as network
development, are much more difficult to quantify in terms of outputs and relative success.
As a result, it may be easier for niches to access funding support for technology-based
transition processes.
It should also be noted, however, that although one of the strengths of the MLP is the
attention it draws towards technology, the role of physical technologies other than those
characterizing socio-technical niches is not clear. Technologies could be considered either
as part of the socio-technical landscape, or embedded within identified regimes. However,
the central place of physical technologies within the MLP led the FarmPath researchers to
consider the role of technologies in agricultural transition processes more carefully than
might otherwise be the case (through assessing which technologies are involved). In many
cases, the niche involved the revival, or revitalization, of a historic method or technology.