Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Analysing stakeholders’ perspectives towards a socio-technical change: The energy transition journey in Gela Municipality

Unitelma Sapienza, University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 291, Italy

Topical Section: Bioenergy and Biofuel

This article investigates the perspectives of involved stakeholders in supporting niche empowering processes necessary for a sustainable energy transitions. It analyses these perspectives by focusing on a concrete example of an on-going transition from fossil fuel to bio-based technologies, namely the case of Gela (Italy). Based on semi-structured interviews conducted with private and public stakeholders, our findings allowed the identification of potential pathways in supporting the empowerment of the investigated energy niche. Among them we can recall: Information campaigns; scientific and technological collaborations, tax relief and production incentives; infrastructural investments; training courses for advanced biorefineries; simplification of administrative procedures.
  Article Metrics


1. Dincer I, Acar C (2017) Smart energy systems for a sustainable future. Appl Energy 194: 225–235.    

2. OECD/EIA (2014) World Energy Outlook, Paris.

3. Hoffmann M (2011) Climate Governance at the Crossroads. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

4. Welch D (2013) What is "Governance" anyway? Can Foreign Policy J 19: 253–267.    

5. Falcone PM, Lopolito A, Sica E (2017) Policy mixes towards sustainability transition in the Italian biofuel sector: Dealing with alternative crisis scenarios. Energy Res Soc Sci 33: 105–114.    

6. Gunningham N (2011) Energy governance in Asia: Beyond the market. East Asia Forum Q 3: 29–30.

7. Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31: 1257–1274.    

8. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change, In: Rayner S, Malone L (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, Batelle Press, Washington D.C, 327–399.

9. Hermans F, Dirkvan A, Stuiver M, et al. (2013) Niches and networks: Explaining network evolution through niche formation processes. Res Policy 42: 613–623.    

10. Smith A, Raven R (2012) What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res Policy 41: 1025–1036.

11. Bush R, Bale C, Powell M, et al. (2017) The role of intermediaries in low carbon transitions-empowering innovations to unlock district heating in the UK. J Cleaner Prod 148: 137–147.    

12. Rogge C, Kern F, Howlett M (2017) Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Change 33: 1–10.    

13. IEA (2015) World Energy Outlook. Available from: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2015.pdf.

14. Battiston S, Farmer JD, Flache A, et al. (2016) Complexity theory and financialregulation. Science 351: 818–819.    

15. Farmer JD, Hepburn C, Mealy P, et al. (2015) A third wave in the economics of climate change. Environ Resour Econ 62: 329–357.    

16. Ponta L, Raberto M, Teglio A, et al. (2018) An agent-based stock-flow consistent model of the sustainable transition in the energy sector. Ecol Econ 145: 274–300.    

17. Markandya A, Dhavala K, Palma A (2018) The role of flexible biofuel policies in meeting biofuel mandates. AIMS Energy 6: 530–550.    

18. Falcone PM, Lopolito A, Sica E (2018) The networking dynamics of the Italian biofuel industry in time of crisis: Finding an effective instrument mix for fostering a sustainable energy transition. Energ Policy 112: 334–348.    

19. Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technol Anal Strategic Manag 10: 175–198.    

20. OECD (2011) Towards Green Growth-A Summary for Policy Makers. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

21. Frantzeskaki N, Loorbach D (2010) Towards governing infrasystem transitions: Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change? Technol Forecast Soc Change 77: 1292–1301.    

22. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustain- able socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34: 1491–1510.    

23. Jacobsson S, Lauber V (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation-explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energ Policy 34: 256–276.    

24. Avelino F, Rotmans J (2009) Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. Eur J Soc Theory 12: 543–569.    

25. Kern F, Verhees B, Raven R, et al. (2015) Empowering sustainable niches: Comparing UK and Dutch offshore wind developments. Technol Forecast Soc Change 100: 344–355.    

26. Verhees B, Raven R, Kern F, et al. (2015) The role of policy in shielding, nurturing and enabling offshore wind in The Netherlands (1973–2013). Renew Sust Energ Rev 47: 816–829.    

27. Raven R, Kern F, Verhees B, et al. (2016) Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases. Environ Innovation Soc Transit 18: 164–180.

28. Falcone PM, Morone P, Sica E (2018) Greening of the financial system and fuelling a sustainability transition: A discursive approach to assess landscape pressures on the Italian financial system. Technol Forecast Soc Change 127: 23–37.    

29. Provalis Research, QDA Miner version 5.0 User Manual, Montreal, QC, Canada (2011). Available form: https://provalisresearch.com/uploads/QDA-Miner-5-User-Guide-V1.2.pdf.

30. Holley C, Lecavalier E (2017) Energy governance, energy security and environmental sustainability: A case study from Hong Kong. Energ Policy 108: 379–389.    

31. Petersen S, Shearing C, Nel D (2015) Sustainability transitions: An investigation of the conditions under which corporations are likely to reshape their practices to reverse environmental degradation. Environ Manage Sustain Dev 4: 85–105.    

32. Honig M, Petersen S, Herbstein T, et al. (2015) A conceptual framework to enable the changes required for a one-planet future. Environ Values 24: 663–688.    

33. Honig M, Petersen S, Shearing C, et al. (2015) The conditions under which farmers are likely to adapt their behaviour: A case study of private land conservation in the Cape Winelands, South Africa. Land Use Policy 48: 389–400.    

34. Veugelers R, Cassiman B (2005) R & D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. Int J Ind O 23: 355–379.

35. UNEP (2005) Communicating Sustainability: How to produce effective public campaigns. Available form: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0679xPA-CommunicatingEN.pdf.

36. Italian Ministry of Economic Development, Italy's national energy strategy (2017). Available from: http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/BROCHURE_ENG_SEN.PDF.

37. Aschauer DA (1990) Why is infrastructure important? Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, New England Economic Review, 21–48.

38. Francu LG (2014) The effects of bureaucracy over the business environment from Romania. Theor Appl Econ 21: 115–125.

39. OECD (2018) Administrative Simplification and Reducing Burdens. Available form: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/administrative-simplification.htm.

© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved