ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access

Collaborative energy visioning underconditions of illiberal democracy: resultsand recommendations from EcuadorEduardo Noboa1* , Paul Upham2 and Harald Heinrichs1

Abstract

Background: Sociotechnical transitions require pressure to be exerted from inside or outside of the prevailing‘regime’, without which various path dependencies combine to maintain the status quo. Change agents includingpolicy entrepreneurs within the regime, or civil society voices outside, can be sources of such pressure. However, inilliberal democracies or authoritarian regimes, these voices may be little heard or even suppressed. With the premisethat this situation calls for protected transition spaces for policy development that are outside of formal institutions,so that policy windows may be taken advantage of should they arise, this paper applies a transdisciplinary transitionmanagement arena (TTMA) process (Noboa and Upham, Energy Res Soc Sci 46:114–124, 2018), whereby civil societyand other stakeholders can be engaged in the envisioning of new energy futures.

Results: With an example of such an arena in Ecuador and presenting a rationale and design that draws ontransdisciplinary research and transition management theories, problem statements, visions and strategies for amore decentralised energy system were set out, as generated by participants from government, NGOs, businessand academia. The visioning process was evaluated and an analytical framework is proposed, by which to guideenergy transition policy analysis in similar contexts in the future.

Conclusions: Although compromised in illiberal democracies, sociotechnical transitions benefit from the voicesof change agents through the building of new alternative discourses, stimulating policy entrepreneurship andcrafting readiness for policy windows. The new alternative energy visions that were produced by participants inthe process described here emphasise distributed renewable and sustainable generation, decentralised decision-makingat subnational level, participatory energy planning governance and heterogeneous poly-technological solutions at smalland medium scales.

Keywords: Ecuador, Illiberal democracy, Transition management, Transdisciplinary research, Energy visions

Highlights

� Selected concepts from transition management andtransdisciplinary sustainability science are blended

� The consequent transdisciplinary transitionmanagement arena is applied to the Ecuadorianenergy system

� Marginalised voices in Ecuador produced an energyvision emphasising decentralised renewables withtemporary large hydro base load

� Participants assessed the transdisciplinary transitionmanagement arena as performing well in terms ofrelevant criteria

Background‘Energy visioning’ is generally understood as the devel-opment of qualitative, energy-focused scenarios, oftenon a participatory, socially inclusive basis and taking theform of storylines, narratives or other more specific for-mats [1]. Visioning processes can complement energyplanning processes and techno-economic modellingpost-hoc or ex-ante, using model results, or can shapemodelling according to differing, explicitly normative

* Correspondence: eduardo.noboa@leuphana.de1Institute for Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana UniversityLuneburg, Universitätsalle 1, 21335 Luneburg, GermanyFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

Energy, Sustainabilityand Society

© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0173-0

possibilities, such as alternative levels of consumption orpatterns of economic production.The aim here is to explore the application of a transdis-

ciplinary transition management arena (TTMA) frame-work whereby multi-sector stakeholders may bemeaningfully engaged in the co-construction of new en-ergy futures [2]. The study tests the application of a theor-etically grounded rationale for TTMA, particularly underconditions of illiberal democracy in Latin America. Thatis, whereby civil society and other entrepreneurial butmarginalised voices may be empowered through theprovision of structured ‘experimental’ fora or platforms inwhich new networks can be forged, knowledge shared andgenerated and alternative policies developed. The processis premised on theoretical perspectives that relate to boththeory and method. Regarding the first, the TTMA drawson theories of sustainability transitions and transform-ation, including transition management. For methodo-logical insights, it draws on ideas from transdisciplinarysustainability sciences and action research. For empiricalapplication, the process is applied in the country ofEcuador. The framework and its use in practice havestrong commonalities with transition management andtransdisciplinary sustainability science processes charac-teristics, but the rationale is quite different, a key objectivebeing to demonstrate the value of both approaches forother political contexts.The study gives equal emphasis to the sociotechnical

sustainability transitions literature and the transdisci-plinary sustainability science (research) literature, ap-proaching these from an action research perspective in

order to co-produce actionable knowledge. In so doing,another underlying premise is Kingdon’s theory of policychange via the conjunction of a policy problem with apolitical window of opportunity for change, with a policyready to be enacted [3–5]. The framework that we applyhere is intended to prepare for such policy windows,should they arise, by providing a protected space for en-ergy policy innovation [3]. The applied and assessedprocess is unofficial and informal in the institutionalsense: the focus is on how informally instituted govern-ance processes might lay the ground for subsequent, for-mal change through empowering network actors,strengthening their network and (as said) preparing al-ternative policy for readiness in case of opportune policywindows arising, as shown in Fig. 1 [3]. In this way, weaim to create informal institutions and networks awayfrom the domination of vested interests.Transition management advocates ‘experimental’ fora

in which possibilities for sociotechnical change can beexplored among multi-sector stakeholders [6]. The ap-proach responds to the way in which sociotechnical sys-tems are complex and adaptive [7, 8], and the way inwhich transitions management seeks to guide transitionprocesses via experiments and collaborative visioning,coupling this with participatory futures or scenario de-sign processes. Often the latter involves the use ofback-casting methods (e.g. [9]) to identify pathways thatguide the development of niche experiments [10, 11].To date, however, the contexts in which transition

management has been applied have predominantly beenin developed countries, with relatively well-functioning

Fig. 1 The TTMA framework (after [2])

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 2 of 17

democracies. Here, a forum suitable for supporting mul-tisector energy-focused sociotechnical change in LatinAmerica is developed and discussed. Latin America hasexperienced political conditions in recent decades sub-stantially different from those in Europe, where transi-tions management ideas were developed. This hasimplications for the design of transition managementprocesses, as new forms of institutionalisation pose athreat to the incumbent regime [12, 13], which, in con-ditions of illiberal democracy, can meet with a severeresponse.The Ecuadorian context provides a test-bed for the

socio-political process of transition management in simi-lar countries where some of the following Ecuadoriancharacteristics may be present: economic vulnerabilitydue to dependency on oil exports and its fluctuatingprice [14], oil production approaching a peak, fossil fuelprices being highly subsidised [15], significant potentialfor the use of hydropower and/or other renewable en-ergy sources [16, 17], high dependence on knowledgeand technology transfer processes [18], compromised in-stitutions for social and environmental governance [19]and a highly centralised energy system [17].With these characteristics in mind, our premise is that

empowering civil society and supporting cross-sectoralnetworking will promote energy system change throughthe expression of a wider range of values in alternative pol-icy options. Within a sociotechnical frame, alternative vi-sions of the future are conceived of as selection pressures,while associated civic debate and NGO campaigns areconceived of as articulation pressures [20]. In this regard,there can be seen a value in the involvement of academicsas facilitators, in effect operating as policy and informal in-stitutional entrepreneurs, helping to catalyse the prepar-ation of alternative environmental policy options [21].The transition management design tested in this study

draws on features of transdisciplinary research, which areintend to develop socially robust solutions for sustainabletransitions via mutual learning, social reflexivity, em-powerment and the building of social capital [22]. Trans-disciplinary research focuses on the integration of thediffering epistemics (ways of knowing) used by scientificresearchers and practitioners from different disciplinesand with different interests. Both approaches share an ac-knowledgement of knowledge and the generation of newknowledge as a particularly valuable form of social capitaland advocate a view of participatory processes as encour-aging social learning and empowerment that can lead topractical change [23, 24]. Accordingly, fora such as theTTMA bring together two allied approaches as a rationalefor underpinning niche-protected energy scenario devel-opment in the illiberal democracies of Latin America.The novelty of the study lies in the investigation of the

functioning of a forum that blends transition

management and transdisciplinary research, in terms ofthe extent to which this is able to offer new, productive,theoretical and practical policy options in the context ofEcuador. The questions seek to answer concern to thedesign and functionality of the TTMA framework devel-oped by [2]: how effective such arena is, as assessed interms of the extent to which compatible visions and ac-tionable knowledge are produced; how satisfied partici-pants were with the process, which is intended tosupport identification of points of commonality ratherthan a focus on differences and what lessons there maybe for the design of such processes in future.In terms of the structure, the paper begins with an over-

view of the energy policy context of Ecuador, contextua-lised within its political-economic history. Then thetheoretical rationale for the transition arena is set out,followed by the case study methods, the results in termsof the energy vision developed through the process and anevaluation, along with recommendations on the design ofthe analytical framework, intended to guide energy transi-tion policy analysis in similar contexts in future.

Energy and the Ecuadorian political-economic contextEcuador’s economy operates around the supply ofnon-renewable natural resources: principally crude oiland to a lesser extent gas and other minerals. In Waller-stein’s terms [25], it is one of the ‘peripheral’ countrieswhich—for some commentators, in neo-colonial fashion[26]—deliver raw materials to the ‘central’ countries thatcontrol trade in finished goods; goods produced withraw materials and labour from peripheral societies andthat feed consumer societies [27].While countries of Latin America have made consider-

able and varied progress towards democracy, they continueto struggle with conditions of state and institutional captureand limited civil liberties [28]. One of the consequences ofa weak civil society is that insufficient attention has beengiven the environmental impacts of resource extractionand energy supply. The elites that control non-renewablenatural resources at the national level (notably the interestgroups linked to oil and mining) have developed an articu-lated network and an institutionality around the extractiveindustry that involves clientelism, corruption and state cap-ture [29]. The institutional frameworks are based on coali-tions made up of networks of actors (also connected totransnational firms), in which powerful sectors of societyparticipate—government, public and private companies—as well as other beneficiaries of the system. Correspondingrules, norms, laws and standards support the stability ofthis system and help to resist change [30].A key point in time for Ecuadorian energy policy was

1979, when, after a decade of military dictatorship,Ecuador returned to a nominally democratic system.This had a significant impact on every aspect of national

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 3 of 17

governance. Prior to democratisation, formerly nationalis-tic policies gave way to a political stance that allowed ag-gressive private, inward investments [14]. Strategicnational resources were privatised, including the exploit-ation of primary energy resources and electricity gener-ation. Crude oil and fossil fuels were given significantincentives for production and trade. The electricity sectorpursued a hydrothermal electricity mix, consisting of largescale hydropower and fossil-fuel-based thermal-electricplants [15, 16]. This period of neoliberalism lasted fornearly three decades, from 1979 until 2007. The periodwas characterised by instability and political change, ex-tensive economic liberalisation policies, with fiscal auster-ity and deregulation [31].In 2008, a new constitution was written. Taking advan-

tage of revenue from oil exports, the new approachintended to return to a state-controlled natural resourcemanagement system and the country adopted the object-ive of making its energy matrix cleaner and more environ-mentally sustainable [32]. Control of the energy sectorpassed from a mainly private-owned governed system to astate-owned centralised system [17]. The period 2008 until2014 has generally been characterised by economic pros-perity as a result of high oil prices and the increase of pro-duction from mature oil fields in the Amazon. Thesefactors, among others, have further cemented theneo-extractive economic model of the country. The gov-ernment implemented policies to promote hydropower,and there were failed attempts to boost non-conventionalrenewable energies [33]. Energy subsidies remainedamong the highest in the world [15] (having beenstrengthened during the previous neoliberal period),which inter alia has led to the transport sector becomingthe fastest growing sector of the economy in terms of en-ergy consumption [34]. Despite the sustainability aspira-tions of the reforms, Ecuador both exports crude oil andimports fossil fuels [35].The concept of ‘energy matrix change’ or ‘energy transi-

tion’ has legitimised the new energy policy by promising agradual increase of the share of renewable energy [15, 16].This increase of renewables is intended mainly to be im-plemented by the electricity sector, by decreasing fossilfuel-based thermal-electric plants and investing in eightnew hydropower plants, the latter funded mainly by thepre-sales of crude oil to the Chinese government [17]. Thepolicy discourse has centred on the idea of funding assetsof crude oil into large hydropower plants, in the name ofclimate change, sustainability and a new post-oil period.Nonetheless, the governance structure of the system hasremained centralised, controlled by incumbents.By 2017, Ecuador was expected to attain 90% of its

electricity generated through renewable energy sources,mainly hydropower [16]. In principle, this objectivemight secure a sustainable energy supply for industrial

innovation. However, state indebtedness capacity hasreached its limit, oil prices have fallen and these haveproved significant barriers to the industrial transform-ation intended to diversify export commodities and re-duce the country’s dependence on oil. Moreover, largescale hydropower is highly contentious for its environ-mental and social externalities [36]. The further central-isation of energy production also threatens to supressthe development of other renewable options for decades,stifling diversification, flexibility and local resilience.

MethodsThe research design is consistent with the objectives ofproducing and evaluating a TTMA capable of producingactionable, policy-relevant knowledge for the redesign ofthe energy system in an illiberal democracy context. Interms of methods, firstly the capacity of the arena tosupport the co-production of energy policy visions andstrategies was documented. Then, evidence on the ef-fectiveness of the arena from the perspectives of the par-ticipants is provided.

Rationale for specific design featuresIn terms of evaluative criteria based on the goals of transi-tion management and transdisciplinary sustainability sci-ence, the arena should enable the convening of anempowered constellation of change agents, from differentsectors, to co-produce transformative knowledge (includ-ing end-state visions), build transformational leadershipcapacities and jointly contribute to the development ofpolicy options for changing the energy system. It ishypothesised that such knowledge may be of most useand influence at times when policy windows occur [3]. Assuch, the group and its facilitator(s) may be viewed as pol-icy entrepreneurs [21] following a strategy of preparednessfor the combination of elements that [3] suggested areprerequisites for policy change. The latter are namely theconjunction of (a) pre-prepared policy option(s), (b) aproblem that fits the pre-prepared policy options or per-ceived solution(s) and (c) political conditions conducivefor change (i.e. the conjunction of three multiple policystreams). The approach reflects particular, pre-identifiedroles of policy entrepreneurs: coalition building, networkmanagement and preparation for windows of opportunity.Figure 2 describes this situation, in which the arena sup-ports the framing of a problem for an agenda opportunity,the creation of a preferred vision for a policy goal and theformulation of collective-action strategies for the oppor-tune implementation in the wider political arena.The case study country is, as said, Ecuador, as both an

instance of illiberal democracy and where the lead re-searcher has been and is embedded within the nationalenergy policy process in both formally and informally in-stituted ways. Selection of participants was partly based

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 4 of 17

on a convenience principle of known contacts but alsowith the intention of representing different sectors.Table 1 provides the affiliations of individuals involved,who had professional affiliations with 30 organisations,agencies and institutions across the government, societycivil and business. Together, they constitute an epistemiccommunity of stakeholders who are professionally en-gaged with energy policy.1

Participants were guided through a dialogue process,reflecting on and integrating the knowledge held in thegroup, plus knowledge provided via presentations andpolicy documents. The first stage was to create a com-mon understanding of the problems of the energy sec-tor—a shared problem statement; the second stage wasto anticipate future challenges, bearing in mind globaland local dynamics and the third stage to develop aroadmap for future collective actions—specifically, tocreate visions for the reinvention of the current energysystem. These stages are considered in more detail inthe “Phases of the arena process” section, and Fig. 2summarises the objectives of the arena.Scholz and Steiner [37] distinguish between different

types of knowledge in transdisciplinary processes,reflecting different modes of thought, (inter-)disciplin-ary, perspectives, interests, systems and (organisational)cultures. Figure 3 summarises the types of knowledge in-volved in such an arena [38], where system knowledgerefers to the current state of a system and the key socialand other factors involved and the capacity of the systemto change [39]. Target knowledge refers to the more spe-cific scope of action and problem-solving measures relat-ing to natural constraints, social laws, norms and valueswithin the system, as well as the interests of actors andtheir individual intentions [40]. Transformation know-ledge refers to the practical implications that can be de-rived from target knowledge, in respect of changes toexisting habits, practices and institutional objectives.Transformation (operational) knowledge enables practi-tioners to evaluate different problem solving strategiesand to achieve the competences to foster, implementand monitor progress and to adapt and change behav-ioural attitudes [39]. Accordingly, the evaluation takesaccount of the contribution of transdisciplinary researchregarding the differing types of knowledge that are

Fig. 2 Synchronising multiple policy streams, collective action and transdisciplinary co-production

Table 1 Affiliations of participants

Affiliations Number

Energy ministry 4

Environmental ministry 1

Agricultural ministry 1

Total government 6

Chamber of industry 1

Renewable energy companies 4

Consultancy companies 1

Total business 6

Local universities 3

International universities 3

Total academia 6

Regional NGOs 3

Global NGOs 4

Professional networks 1

Total NGOs 8

United Nations Development Programme 2

Bilateral cooperation 1

Multilateral banks 2

Intergovernmental organisations 1

Total international organisation 6

Total stakeholders 32

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 5 of 17

helpful for such processes and how capacity building takesplace through providing opportunities for shared reflexiv-ity and trust-building. Such processes are intended to takeplace alongside those of formal institutions, generating al-ternative policy solutions via the involvement of multiplepartners and scientific assistance [19] (Fig. 4).The arena design is intended to encourage reflexivity as

part of consensus building, following [41]. That is, to sup-port critical reflection on participants’ values and orienta-tion as well as the ability to adapt one’s own positions andgoals, thereby supporting and enabling capacities for pur-posive, collective action [42]. This in turn is theorised toinvolve and develop the capacity to anticipate problemsand integrate knowledge, helping to generate the relevantforms of knowledge described above. Figure 5 describesthis development of collective capacities.Another objective of the arena is to promote trust and

long-term collaboration among the participants (individ-ual and institutional), resulting from common under-standings of the problem, the identification of a sharedvalues and the commitment to organise joint future ac-tions. Figure 6 places these in relation to each other inorder to build supportive networks and social capital.Group identity formation is important in engendering acommitment to collective action; hence, [43] refer to thepsycho-social normative alignment model of promotingongoing commitment to collective action via the craftingof a social identity based on norms for emotion, efficacy

and action that contribute to a dynamic system of mean-ing and hence commitment to a cause. Similarly, [44]refer to social identity as shared and relational and asthe product of a group’s collective history and present. Ashared identity also implies a need for trust building.Harris and Lyon [45] observe that trust among stake-holders is shown to be built by having information onothers, prior experience of working together, norms ofcooperation and sanctions exerted on those who mighttransgress norms of behaviour [45].

Phases of the arena processThe phases of the arena process were sequenced so as tosupport the above processes and either generate or useparticular types of knowledge.

(i) Contextualization (information inputs)

The contextualization phase firstly provides informa-tion on the global and national context of the energysector, and secondly, provides information on the back-ground, objectives and the process of the arena. This in-cluded presentations by experts and local authoritiesabout their views of the energy sector’s development to-wards the future.

(ii) Problem definition

Fig. 3 The objectives of the arena

Fig. 4 Co-production of knowledge

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 6 of 17

Generating knowledge of the problem was based on adescriptive analysis of the problems of the Ecuadorian en-ergy sector, investigating the lessons from the past and thepresent, taking into account the perspectives, concern andexperience of the different actors. A common understand-ing of the problem was created by decomposing the ele-ments that make up the socio-technical-ecological,techno-economic and political subsystems of energy andthen discussing how they interact and influence (positivelyand negatively) the continual reconfiguration of the macrosystem. The sequence of doing this is described in Fig. 6.

(iii)Vision development

The generation of multiple visions consisted of a reflect-ive participatory process through which the values, beliefsand interests of the actors, representing the different sec-tors of society, could be examined within the frameworkof the collective construction of common visions. Futurevisions were generated where conflicts and differenceswere managed via the generation of ‘preferable’ solutionsinstead of ‘perfect’ solutions. These used the system know-ledge co-produced in phase 2. Key elements and their in-terrelationships were identified, taking into account thevariety of perceptions and how their arguments and

reasoning may be contrary or complementary to one an-other. This process allows participants to identify spacesof consensus whilst emphasising the creativity andexperimentation of a reflexive governance process. Thedevelopment of visions took place in sectoral groups(government, business, academia, NGOs), where each sec-tor had the task of exploring a future scenario in whichthe most relevant current issues can be solved, proposinga ‘preferable’ vision of the future of sustainable energy inEcuador. These were then presented to the other sectors,in order to generate new perspectives, facilitate under-standing and the co-production of knowledge. Figure 7illustrates the process.

(iv) Strategy development

The collective production of knowledge about strat-egies consisted of the formulation of the potential strat-egies needed to achieve the normative vision proposedin phase 3. Strategies represented the path or roadmapto be followed, taking as orientation the changes re-quired in the elements, subsystems and dynamics tohypothetically achieve a restructuring of the system as awhole. The collective production of transformationknowledge is embodied in the formulation of potential

Fig. 5 Development of collective capacities

Fig. 6 Supportive network building

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 7 of 17

strategies that are needed to achieve the normative visionproposed in phase 3. The strategies represent a roadmapto guide the actions required to hypothetically stimulatechange in the energy system’s structure. Figure 8 repre-sents this formulation of multilevel strategies as a collect-ive process of understanding the need for cooperation andlinking of the different levels, from the individual contri-bution, collective action and institutional commitment, tothe involvement of decision-makers at a national level.Through the previous processes of reflection, anticipation

of future scenarios and integration of varied perspectives,the participants in the final phase of the participatoryprocess managed to (a) reach a common understandingabout the complexity of the energy problem; (b) build agroup identity and vision based on common values, beliefsand interests and (c) articulate a group strategy to poten-tially influence the processes of energy policy formulation.This strategy is enacted through the collaborative generationof knowledge, the construction of an alternative discourseand the strategic cross-sectoral actions which promotetransformation towards a sustainable energy system.

In terms of potential windows of opportunity, thearena was implemented between the first round of presi-dential elections and the second round of presidentialelections and in general, such junctures offer situationsof policy uncertainty during which alternative policiesmay find a receptive audience. Another advantage ofundertaking this during or close to election periods isthat governmental actors who are normally empoweredand indeed authoritarian are temporarily in a situationof uncertainty and more inclined to engage with thosewho are normally disempowered. In other words, theyare more open to dialogue with stakeholders and powerasymmetries are temporarily reduced. Figure 9 providesadditional detail on the wider political juncture relevantduring the period of the study.Regarding data collection and analysis, firstly, ex-ante

interviews with the participants were conducted andtranscribed; secondly, silent observers recorded and ob-served the arena process and finally, a post-hoc ques-tionnaire was administered. Themes and issuesidentified during the session informed the tables and

Fig. 7 Common understanding of the problem

Fig. 8 The development of visions in initially separate groups

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 8 of 17

framework below, and further reflection was undertakenvia thematic coding of the transcripts in qualitative dataanalysis software Atlas TI (Fig. 10).

ResultsGiven our objectives of trialling and evaluating a process, aswell as making recommendations regarding any refine-ments of that process, the results relate to both contentand process. The content-based results consist of a concep-tual model of the energy system; as it currently is apreferred, long-term vision and a strategy for itsimplementation.

Process and contentOverall, the arena design supported joint cross-sectoraland inter-organisational effort, enabling the visualisationof alternative futures and the development of policy strat-egies for realising these. The arena also facilitated a betterunderstanding of the positions held by those in the differ-ent sectors, supporting solution-oriented approaches that

are complementary rather than competing, based on acommon understanding of the current energy problemthat included the perspectives and concerns of the differ-ent sectors of the society involved. Table 2 summarisesthis, alongside perceptions of the key features (right handcolumn) and problems (centre column).The results presented are a summary and synthesis of

perspectives of the different stakeholders on the partici-patory process. As can be seen in Table 2, the currentdevelopment path is viewed as over-reliant on a smallnumber of large hydropower plants, with limited oppor-tunity for diversification into other forms and scales ofrenewable energy supply that might reduce the vulner-ability of the power grid, reduce socio-environmentalimpacts and catalyse new initiatives among small- andmedium-sized companies. In terms of ownership, thereis a preference for the private sector to have a role, butnot to the extent that state monopoly becomes privatemonopoly or oligopoly: it is diversity that is sought, forits presumed resilience and dynamism.

Fig. 9 Formulation of multilevel strategies

Fig. 10 Window of opportunity by design, presidential elections, new cycle of energy policy planning

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 9 of 17

Table 2 Shared understanding of current energy system problems and a future vision

Categories Sub-categories Problem Vision

Energy planning Interconnection withnational developmentplan

No interconnection with the national sustainabilityplan

The national plan sets the principles and valuesof the energy system

Planning horizon Short/middle political terms planning Long-term multi-stakeholder visions

Planning goal Only focus on electricity/short term: 90% hydropowerin 2017

Zero fossil fuels in 2040

Regional integrationapproach

National sovereignty: protectionism/competitionwith neighbour countries

Regional sovereignty: renewable energy resourcescomplementarity among countries

Enablingenvironments

Financial mechanisms Only public investments with internationalChinese loans and multilateral credits aredirected to centralised extractive projects

Private–public partnerships (PPP) attractinginternational direct investment

Knowledge productionand transfer

Lack of processes of knowledge transfer,production, research and development

Existence of sectoral knowledge productionloops. Cooperation between academia, state andindustry via knowledge platforms

Capacity building Lack of capacities for system transformation Existence of sectoral learning loops. Cooperationbetween academia, state and industry via knowledgeplatforms

Technology andinfrastructure

Technologicaldiversification in thesupply

Low: large hydro-thermal High: small and middle size poly-technological(mainly: hydro-solar + (biomass/waste/wind))

Energy conversion Promotion of fossil fuel-based refineries and fossilfuel-based infrastructure

Bio-refineries and renewable power plants are inoperation

Demand/consumption Fossil fuel-based technology use Electrification of the final uses

Regulatoryframeworks

Ownership of theinfrastructure

State-owned Private–public partnerships

Supply subsidies/incentives

Fossil fuel subsidies and traditional electricitysubsidies

Transparent/fair competition between technologies

Demand subsidies/incentives

Incentives for the use of fossil fuels Incentives for the use of efficient electricity-basedtechnologies

Market access No regulations that incentivize the participationof private sector in the supply of renewable energy

Regulations incentivize the participation of privatesector in the supply of renewable energy via feed-n tariffs (FITs) and auctions

Institutionalframework

Degree of centralizationin decision making

Centralised and top-down Decentralised and centralised: bottom-up,middle-out and top-down

Market structure Mono/oligopolies Multi-SMEs

Cross-sectoral integration Disconnection of sectoral agendas Mutually consistent and reinforcing policy mixes

Institutional networksstructure

Formal sectoral networks with disconnectedagendas

Informal and formal cross-sectoral networksinteracting

Governance type Authoritarian, state-driven technocratic governancetype

Participatory and reflexive dynamic amongsocietal sectors; polycentric

Civil society role Civil society unable to participate in the decision-making processes of the energy sector

Civil society is supporting decision-making,promoting dialogue, production of knowledgeand integrating new perspectives

Cultural change Education No nation-wide environmental educationprograms for the different levels of education

Society is well educated about environment andsustainability through formal programs for all levelsof education

Mindset change Neither information nor knowledge is regularlydisseminated about the changes needed in theenergy system.

Long-term communication campaigns aredisseminating information driving mindset change

There is no experimentation with new models oforganisation, business and sectoral interaction.

Knowledge and social innovation platforms arepart of the sectoral culture

Consumer behaviour Consumers are not environmentally aware Consumers are socially and environmentallyresponsible in regards to the selection of efficientartefacts and their energy use

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 10 of 17

The participants’ views favour micro, small- andmedium-scale energy supply at different subnationallevels, paralleling the results of the United Nations Habi-tat III meeting that was held in Quito-Ecuador in 2016,where the need to decentralise energy systems to muni-cipal levels was highlighted [46, 47]. Stakeholders weresimilarly concerned about the lack of development ofthe microgeneration and/or distributed generation todate in Ecuador. The linkages between decentralisationand democracy was also a priority within the discus-sions, where participants pointed out how decentralisedinfrastructure can strengthen democratic processes andstimulate the distribution of investments, benefits andwealth around the country and at the same time create anation-wide industrial constellation by supporting andmobilising the capacities of small and medium enter-prises currently trying to promote non-conventional re-newable energy supply.Moreover, the participants proposed a future energy

matrix that is a hydro-solar mix, where the existing largehydroelectric supply acts as base load, synchronising andcoordinating with micro, small and mediumsolar-photovoltaic systems that would more fully exploitthe solar potential of the equator in locations with suitableconditions, as well as residential solar thermal-water-heaters in Amazonian and coastal regions. Other types ofnon-conventional renewable energy technologies such asbiomass (solid, liquid and gas), wind and geothermal werealso consider as part of a preferable future scenario thatwould replace fossil-based sources at a progressive pace.

The energy matrix diversification according to the par-ticipants would, overall, reflect heterogeneous solutionson a multi-level and multi-scale basis, diverse in termsof technologies and plural in terms of decision-makingand investment (e.g. public–private partnerships, muni-cipal–private partnerships, etc.). This is reflected inTable 2.Another key theme in terms of output from the

TTMA is the need for attention to the ongoing depend-ence on and subsidy for fossil fuels in the transport (mo-bility) sector and residential LPG (liquefied petroleumgas) for cooking and water heating, as well as the lack ofpolicies for encouraging energy efficiency or reducewaste and environmental impacts. The group reflectedon the need to reduce and redirect current fossil fuelsubsidies towards dynamic incentives that promote re-newable technologies in these sectors.Building on this, participants produced a set of strat-

egies for achieving the vision (Table 3). The latter coveredtopics including integrated planning and political agendasintersection (water-food-energy nexus), decentralisation ofinfrastructure and decision making, good governance andparticipative energy planning, diversification of energysources, demand side management through education,correct endowment of energy subsidies and transparencyin prices, the establishment of a zero fossil fuel target,strengthening of energy security and resilience and sus-tainability of the system, among others.Figure 11 summarises the interconnections among the

elements of the reconfigured system envisaged.

Table 2 Shared understanding of current energy system problems and a future vision (Continued)

Categories Sub-categories Problem Vision

Consumers are not actively part of the renewableenergy market

Consumers are becoming prosumers (producers andconsumers). Prosumers sell and buy renewable energy

Agendaintersection

Water-food-energy nexus Lack of integration of the political agendas of theMinistry of Energy with the Secretary of Waterand the Ministry of Agriculture

There are formal and informal fora’s where actorsof the three sectors interact and producesolution-oriented knowledge

Environment/climatechange-energy nexus

Environmental ministry does not have stronginfluence on the decision-making process of theenergy planning

Environmental and renewable energy actors fromacademia, business sector, NGOs and governmenthave developed mechanisms for interactions anddecision-making support

Transportation(mobility)-energy nexus

Transport and energy agendas do not have astrong interface. Inefficient individual fossil-fuel-based systems are promoted

Efficient, social and environmental friendly multi-modalsystems are implemented with the support ofparticipatory planning process involving the Ministryof Transport, subnational levels (municipalities) andcross-sectoral stakeholders

Social development-energy nexus

There isn’t an energy social agenda where socialand energy strategies have an interplay

A cross-sectoral energy social agenda is implementedin order to deal with energy-justice, energy-poverty,energy-equity and energy-democracy

Productive matrix-energynexus

Crude oil is the main export product and willremain for the next 10 years until the reservesdecline dramatically

Renewable electricity is fuelling the productivematrix transformation by electrifying the productionof goods and services for export

International affairs-energynexus

Weak regional energy integration processes.There are no complementarity strategies

Strong energy systems integration processes withinthe South American region promoting resourcescomplementarity

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 11 of 17

Figure 12 describes some of the strategies by which thenew vision would be reached, encompassing new know-ledge co-production and capacity building, networks andcoalition articulation and various strategic communicationstrategies and channels (fostering interface spaces and dia-logue, participation and involvement, lobbying, think tanks,policy support, cyber-politics) creating a knowledge andcommunication loop and a learning and empowering loop.

Evaluation and framework to guide energy transitionpolicy developmentIn terms of evaluation, the participants concurred that thetransdisciplinary transitions arena succeeded in stimulat-ing socio-professional networks that were likely to endurein the medium to longer term. Nonetheless, there isclearly scope for longitudinal study, to assess any changesin the access to power, changes in discourse and under-standings of energy sector problems both in the niche andthe political arena. Table 4 presents descriptive statisticsfor selected process evaluation questions, drawing on over30 such questions, all inviting responses on a 5-pointLikert scale. All show a large majority of positive view.Based on the above rationale, sequenced structure and

effectiveness of the arena in the terms described above,an energy transition assessment framework is proposedas follows in Fig. 12. The purpose of this framework isto aid and guide thinking in similar contexts, buildingon the experience in Ecuador. It begins with develop-ment and planning principles for orientation that drawon the principles of transition management and transdis-ciplinary (sustainability science) research, particularlythose relating to the inclusion of a range of stakeholdersin the design of policy and practice for sustainability

Table 3 Co-produced strategies for achieving the new energysystem vision

Strategies for energy system transformation

Cross-sectoral participatoryscenario planning

To create a common vision about thefuture of Ecuador, not only energy.This vision will guide the shaping of theenergy system

To institutionalise participatory planningprocess with long-term visioningprocesses

To develop cross-sectoral key-expertdialogues and participatory planningworkshops about political agendaintersections

Educational strategies forsustainable development

To develop and articulate educationalproposals to be transfer for theimplementations by the nationalauthorities

To institutionalise knowledge co-productionfor the innovation of the sectoral culture

Financial strategies To develop regional expert dialoguesand workshops about energycomplementarity in order to co-produceknowledge about the energycomplementarity in the region

To produce technical robust knowledgeabout redirecting investment to sustainablealternatives. Divesting carbon and investingin renewability

To develop a regulatory frameworkproposal to promote legal security andprivate–public partnerships for investments

To develop a regulatory frameworkproposal to promote small and middlesize poly-technological (mainly: hydro-solar+ (biomass/waste/wind)) investments

To incentive the use of electricity-basedalternatives. Creating awareness of theneed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidiesand incentive the use of local renewableenergy sources

Knowledge co-productionplatforms

To institutionalise knowledge co-productionfor the innovation of the sectoral culture

To develop regional expert dialoguesand workshops about energycomplementarity in order to co-produceknowledge about the energycomplementarity in the region

To produce technical robust knowledgeabout redirecting investment to sustainablealternatives. Divesting carbon and investingin renewability

Regulatory frameworksdevelopment

To develop a regulatory framework proposalabout sustainable energy pricing policies

To develop a regulatory frameworkproposal to incorporate future participationof private companies in the process ofenergy supply

To develop a regulatory frameworkproposal to incorporate futureparticipation of private SMEs companiesin the process of energy supply

Table 3 Co-produced strategies for achieving the new energysystem vision (Continued)

Strategies for energy system transformation

To develop a regulatory frameworkproposal to promote legal security forprivate–public partnerships and investments

To develop a regulatory frameworkproposal to promote small and middlesize poly-technological (mainly: hydro-solar+ (biomass/waste/wind)) developments

Strategic communicationstrategies

To develop and implement multi-channelcommunication campaigns to createawareness, understanding, engagementand action by societal actors

To incentive the use of electricity-basedalternatives. Creating awareness of theneed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidiesand incentive the use of local renewableenergy sources

Supportive networksarticulation

To empower cross-sectoral partnershipsof civil society, academia and businesssector by generating and transferringknowledge and articulating networks

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 12 of 17

[48]. It also draws on the knowledge-related principles oftransdisciplinary (sustainability science) research, whichseeks to incorporate and cohere different types andsources of knowledge [49]. Finally, it draws on the systemsperspective of sociotechnical transitions thinking ingeneral, in which the different realms of society (politics,economics, resources, technology, etc.) are viewed asinter-related, mutually influencing and hence requiringpolicy responses that recognise this [50]. As such, theframework lays out and categorises recommended, coreelements for consideration in such arenas (Fig. 13).

DiscussionExperience with the transition arena in Ecuador raises anumber of inter-related issues. These include the norma-tivity of the transitions management, transdisciplinary sus-tainability science research and the advocated framework,

their generalisability and issues of democratic representa-tion, including the role of civil society and other actors,such as lay publics. These issues are considered below.Within a sociotechnical frame, alternative visions of

the future are conceived of as selection pressures, mean-ing that these visions compete and present alternativeoptions. The associated civic debate and NGO cam-paigns are conceived of as articulation pressures, mean-ing that these are means by which pressure is exerted[20]. Transition management arenas are premised on theview that formal institutions are not themselves capableof generating these types of pressure, that is, that theyare not supportive of innovative thought, social and pol-icy experiments— nor to widely cross-sectoral engage-ment. Formal institutions have path dependencies thatmaintain the status quo, and formally instituted policychange often has implications for resource distribution;

Fig. 11 Detail of interconnections

Fig. 12 Transformation strategies towards sustainable energy

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 13 of 17

both features mitigate against change and experimenta-tion. In short, those operating within and dependent ona relatively stable sociotechnical regime are unlikely toseek to destabilise it unless they see some purpose todoing so; it is often the need to respond to external pres-sures that provide this purpose and motivation.In illiberal democracies, the stability of the status quo

is strengthened by features such as state capture, au-thoritarianism and monopoly or oligopolistic control.Transition management seeks to intervene and disruptthe status quo in non-confrontational ways; though ofcourse, this may well limit its effectiveness in terms ofpolicy change. Nonetheless, it seeks to build a wider pol-icy legitimacy through relatively inclusive participationand hence perceived procedural legitimacy [51]. As agovernance perspective, transition management viewsthe engagement of a wide variety of stakeholders in pol-icy development as a necessary element in furtheringsustainability through enhanced social learning [52, 53].The TTMA that is trialled here—and the underpin-

ning, corresponding analytical framework that is advo-cated—both allow for the explicit definition of particularnorms, but only to the extent that these are consistentwith the premises of sociotechnical sustainability transi-tions [54] and transdisciplinary sustainability science re-search [55]. Within these terms, the framework allowsfor the expression of different specific norms (e.g. re-garding the ongoing use of fossil fuels with carbon cap-ture or large-scale use of biomass and hydropower). As

such, therefore, while it can be seen that the TTMA andthe proposed analytical framework are somewhat nor-matively flexible and generalizable, it should be recog-nised that they do embody norms of liberal democracy.Moreover, it is also recognised that there are alternative

conceptions of sustainability and optimal or preferredsociotechnical routes to similar lower carbon goals. Thisraises the question of how the arena process, and theframework might accommodate any irreconcilable clashof views within the group. Here, the development of vi-sions deliberately took place in separate sectoral groups(government, business, academia and NGOs), where eachsector had the task of developing a future scenario thatwould address the problems that they perceived as mostrelevant. These scenarios were then presented to the othersectors, in order to generate new perspectives, facilitateunderstanding and co-produce a synthesis scenario. Thisprocess ‘worked’ because the invited participants wereknown priori to share compatible views on how the en-ergy system in Ecuador should develop. This is an import-ant success condition. If participants are unable togenerate a consensual vision, then a number of variant vi-sions may be required and this should not (in our view)be seen as problematic.

ConclusionA case for the value of blending aspects of transdisciplin-ary sustainability and transition management, to form a‘TTMA’, is advocated, by which to justify and guide the en-gagement of multi-sector actors in the design of alterna-tive energy futures in illiberal democracies. The rationalefor this centres on the premise that outputs from suchprocesses may function as a source of pressure on thesociotechnical regime, should policy windows arise. Here,such a TTMA is described, and its application in Ecuadorassessed, with the design being found effective in terms ofgenerating a consensual vision and set of policy-relatedstrategies. A framework for guiding future instances is setout accordingly.At the same time, it is also clear that such proposals are

no panacea for the interconnected political and energy sys-tem problems of countries such as Ecuador. Indeed, their lo-cation outside of formal institutions can be viewed as aweakness, with no direct input to formal policy processes.Moreover, consensus within such processes cannot alwaysbe presumed, especially as policy proposals become morespecific. Nonetheless, the development of more than one vi-sion and set of strategies within such contexts is feasible andcan be allowed for. Overall, experience with energy-relatedTTMA outside of developed countries is still limited in ex-tent, and there is significant scope for further empirical andtheoretical consideration of how well such concepts transferto different political and economic contexts.

Table 4 Selected process evaluation questions (n= 30 participants)

Question Stronglyagree

Agree

The knowledge generated is relevant to the currentcircumstances.

83% 7%

The knowledge generated contains ideas that questionthe status quo.

47% 33%

The knowledge generated helps to understand thelogic between the elements of the system.

37% 57%

The process stimulated self-reflection about my position(orientation of my values, beliefs and interests) regardingthe energy system.

30% 40%

The process stimulated the connection of various typesof knowledge and integration of different perspectiveson the energy sector.

43% 37%

The process encouraged the expansion of my knowledgeabout the sustainability of the energy sector

43% 27%

The group dynamics generated a common understandingof the key elements of the energy problem.

43% 40%

Group dynamics enriched the understanding of theproblem by including new perspectives.

53% 37%

The group dynamics identified elements that can articulatea sustainable vision of the future of the energy sector.

50% 30%

Group dynamics facilitated the process of developingstrategy proposals to achieve the vision for the future.

33% 40%

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 14 of 17

While transition management experiments have beenimplemented in Europe and interest is growing intransdisciplinary science approaches, use of these ratio-nales for informal energy planning processes in devel-oping countries, where energy sector planningprocesses are autocratic or technocratic, state-drivencentralised or private-driven centralised, reflecting thecharacteristics of illiberal democracies and state cap-ture, has been less common. Nonetheless, TTMAs

arguably have potential for application in Latin Ameri-can and developing countries, where the conditionspermit the parallel development of non-mainstreampolicy, awaiting policy windows for change. Indeed, theauthors have undertaken a similar exercise in Peru,where the political context is governed by the privatesector (state capture). The results were similar, thoughthe scenarios and visions involved more small-scale re-newables, multi-pole decentralised governance and

Fig. 13 A framework for energy transition policy

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 15 of 17

distributed generation; transparency was also given ahigher priority. There is also experience of participatorymodelling and planning in Chile and Argentina, havingbeen promoted by governments and involving civil so-ciety, business and academia [56, 57].Overall, the originality of the study lies in two main con-

tributions. The first is the combination of transdisciplinaryresearch, transition management and multiple streams ap-proach as a rationale; the second is the practical applica-tion, trial and evaluation of the approach in a developingcountry, specifically an illiberal democracy. It was foundfeasible to articulate a multi-stakeholder group in order toco-produce knowledge about a common problem, apreferable vision and strategies that are amenable to trans-lation to policies. While a TTMA cannot of course guar-antee policy implementation, with institutionalisation oradoption of TTMA output being subject to political anddecision processes outside of its control, the TTMA atleast offers a preparatory stage for transformation, helpingto develop supportive knowledge-networks and alternativediscourses, for windows of opportunity.The implications of the above are primarily in the infor-

mal rather than formal policy sphere, given that transitionmanagement arenas are specifically intended to mitigateagainst the path dependencies or lock-ins of formal insti-tutions. As stated, the objective of such arenas is to de-velop alternative or informal policy that is available forapplication when circumstances permit. The policy objec-tives and strategies developed through the arena reflectthe principles of transition management, which in turn re-flect a systems perspective. Hence, they call for policymixes that are consistent in the sense of being mutuallyreinforcing despite being applied in different sectors. Theycall for a more decentralised and liberalised energy systemwith a multi-scale renewable energy supply.Overall, there is a strong theme of opening the energy

system up to other possibilities than what current statemonopolies permit, while at the same time simply avoid-ing creating private monopolies or oligopolies instead.These possibilities relate to technology types and scales,institutional frameworks and—importantly—governancearrangements. In an illiberal democracy, the latter is at theheart of the problem and informal policy arenas are an at-tempt to improve on a situation where too few interestsare involved in policy shaping. Going forward, it remainsto be seen to what extent Ecuadorian energy policy opensup in all senses.

Endnotes1This particular arena did not involve members of the lay

public. Although a case can certainly be made for doingthis, the purpose of the arena was to co-produce primarilyscientifically and technically informed policy visions.

AbbreviationsFIT: Feed-in tariff; LPG: Liquefied petroleum gas; NGO: Non-governmentalorganisation; PPP: Public–private partnership; SME: Small and mediumenterprise; TTMA: Transdisciplinary transition management arena

FundingThe transdisciplinary transition management workshop was co-funded by thecharitable foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES-ILDIS), the InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Future Latin AmericanFoundation (FFLA) and Leuphana University Lüneburg (Germany).

Availability of data and materialsThe study is semi-qualitative and conforms to the usual norm of maintainingconfidentiality for those who took part, rather than hosting data publicly.

Authors’ contributionsEN designed and undertook the research project, including establishing thetheoretical framing. PU made a substantive contribution in terms of discussionof ideas and language. HH also added to the theoretical development of thepaper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participateVia an ethical protocol, the participants gave informed consent to the use ofinformation generated in the forum process. Conditions of anonymity havebeen adhered to.

Consent for publicationThere is no individually identifiable information in the paper.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in publishedmaps and institutional affiliations.

Author details1Institute for Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana UniversityLuneburg, Universitätsalle 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany. 2Institute forEnvironmental and Sustainability Communication (INFU), LeuphanaUniversity Luneburg, Universitätsalle 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany.

Received: 22 May 2018 Accepted: 20 September 2018

References1. Ernst A, Biß KH, Shamon H, Schumann D, Heinrichs HU (2018) Benefits and

challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenariodevelopment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 127:245–257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.026

2. Noboa E, Upham P (2018) Energy policy and transdisciplinary transitionmanagement arenas in illiberal democracies: a conceptual framework.Energy Res Soc Sci 46:114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2018.07.014

3. Kingdon JW (2003) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 1976, 1977,1978, 1979 [United States]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28024.v1

4. Cairney P, Jones MD (2016) Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: what isthe empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Stud J 44:37–58.https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111

5. Llamosas C, Upham P, Blanco G (2018) Multiple streams, resistance andenergy policy change in Paraguay (2004–2014). Energy Res Soc Sci 42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.011

6. Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N (2016) Designing a knowledge co-productionoperating space for urban environmental governance—lessons fromRotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ Sci Pol 62:90–98.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010

7. Foxon TJ, Reed MS, Stringer LC (2009) Governing long-term social–ecologicalchange: what can the adaptive management and transition managementapproaches learn from each other? Environ Policy Gov 19:3–20

8. Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: aprescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23:161–183

9. J. Quist, Backcasting for a sustainable future: the impact after 10 years, 2007

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 16 of 17

10. Rotmans J, Kemp R, Van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution:transition management in public policy. Foresight 3:15–31

11. Smith A, Stirling A. The politics of social-ecological resilience andsustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecol Soc. 2010;15(1).

12. Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainablesocio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 34, 1491–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005

13. Shove, E., Walker, G., 2007. CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice,and sustainable transition management. Environ. Plan. A 39, 763–770

14. Svampa M (2015) Commodities consensus: neoextractivism and enclosureof the commons in Latin America. South Atl Q 114:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2831290

15. Chavez-Rodriguez MF, Carvajal PE, Martinez Jaramillo JE, Egüez A,Mahecha REG, Schaeffer R, Szklo A, Lucena AFP, Arango Aramburo S(2018) Fuel saving strategies in the Andes: long-term impacts for Peru,Colombia and Ecuador. Energ Strat Rev 20:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2017.12.011

16. Carvajal PE, Anandarajah G, Mulugetta Y, Dessens O (2017) Assessinguncertainty of climate change impacts on long-term hydropowergeneration using the CMIP5 ensemble—the case of Ecuador. Clim Chang144:611–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2055-4

17. Escribano G (2013) Ecuador’s energy policy mix: development versusconservation and nationalism with Chinese loans. Energy Policy 57:152–159.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.022

18. Vernengo M (2006) Technology, finance, and dependency: Latin Americanradical political economy in retrospect. Rev Radic Polit Econ 38:551–568.https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613406293220

19. Omeje K (2017) Extractive economies and conflicts in the global south: re-engaging rentier theory and politics. InExtractive Economies And ConflictsIn The Global South, Routledge, pp 19–44

20. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005

21. Huitema D, Lebel L, Meijerink S (2011) The strategies of policyentrepreneurs in water transitions around the world. Water Policy 13:717–733. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.107

22. Scholz RW (2017) The normative dimension in transdisciplinarity, transitionmanagement, and transformation sciences: new roles of science anduniversities in sustainable transitioning. Sustain 9:991 internal-pdf://228.60.152.102/Scholz Normativity Transdisciplinarity Transit.pdf

23. T.A.L. Berman, When knowledge is power: grassroots participatory initiativeas a process of resource development, urban growth 2018. (2018)

24. Schäpke N, Omann I, Wittmayer JM, van Steenbergen F, Mock M (2017)Linking transitions to sustainability: a study of the societal effects oftransition management. Sustain 9:737

25. Wallerstein I (1976) Semi-peripheral countries and the contemporary worldcrisis. Theory Soc 3:461–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161293

26. Watts MJ (2016) Colonialism, decolonization, and neocolonialism. Int EncyclGeogr People Earth Environ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0692

27. Baudrillard J (1988) Consumer Society, Jean Baudrillard Sel Writings, pp 29–5628. P.H. Smith, C.J. Sells, Democracy in Latin America, Oxford University Press 201629. Mitchell T (2009) Carbon democracy. Econ Soc 38:399–432. https://doi.org/

10.1080/0308514090302059830. De Graaff N (2011) A global energy network? The expansion and integration

of non-triad national oil companies. Glob Networks 11:262–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011.00320.x

31. Berrios R, Marak A, Morgenstern S (2011) Explaining hydrocarbonnationalization in Latin America: economics and political ideology. Rev IntPolit Econ 18:673–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2010.493733

32. CONSTITUCION DEL ECUADOR (2008) Constitución del Ecuador - 2008.Regist Of 449:67. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

33. Burchardt HJ, Dietz K (2014) (Neo-)extractivism - a new challenge fordevelopment theory from Latin America. Third World Q 35:468–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.893488

34. Sierra JC (2016) Estimating road transport fuel consumption in Ecuador.Energy Policy 92:359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.008

35. Fontaine G (2011) The effects of governance modes on the energy matrixof Andean countries. Energy Policy 39:2888–2898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.064

36. Ansar A, Flyvbjerg B, Budzier A, Lunn D (2014) Should we build more largedams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. EnergyPolicy 69:43–56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069

37. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinaryprocesses: part I—theoretical foundations. Sustain Sci 10:527–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0326-4

38. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ,von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainabilityscience. Ecol Econ 92:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

39. Hadorn GH, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications oftransdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128

40. Jahn T (2008) Transdisciplinarity in the practice of research, TransdisziplinäreForsch. Integr. Forschungsprozesse Verstehen Und Bewerten. CampusVerlag, Frankfurt/Main, Ger, pp 21–37

41. Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach totransdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory toreflexive science. Futures 65:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

42. Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, van der Hel S, Widerberg O, Adler C,Hurlbert M, Anderton K, Sethi M, Barau A (2017) Exploring the governanceand politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ Innov SocTransitions 24:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

43. Thomas EF, McGarty C, Mavor KI (2009) Aligning identities, emotions, andbeliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action.Personal Soc Psychol Rev 13:194–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341563

44. Reicher S, Spears R, Haslam SA (2010) The social identity approach in socialpsychology, Sage Identities Handb, pp 45–62 internal-pdf://179.58.177.4/Social identity chapter final.doc

45. Harris F, Lyon F (2013) Transdisciplinary environmental research: buildingtrust across professional cultures. Environ Sci Pol 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.006

46. UN-Habitat, 18 – Urban Infrastructure and Basic Services (2015) Includingenergy. Habitat III Issue Pap 2015:0–9 https://www.habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/issue-papers

47. Barragán-Escandón A, Terrados-Cepeda J, Zalamea-León E, Barragán-Escandón A, Terrados-Cepeda J, Zalamea-León E (2017) The role ofrenewable energy in the promotion of circular urban metabolism. Sustain 9:2341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122341

48. Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transition management:examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42:237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.009

49. Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2008) Core terms in transdisciplinary research. HandbTransdiscipl Res:427–432

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

51. Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutionalapproaches. Acad Manag Rev 20:571–610

52. Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2007) Transition management as a modelfor managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development.Int J Sust Dev World 14:1–15

53. Upham P, Virkamäki V, Kivimaa P, Hildén M, Wadud Z (2015) Socio-technicaltransition governance and public opinion: the case of passenger transport inFinland. J Transp Geogr 46:210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.024

54. F.W. Geels, J. Schot, Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, 36(2007) 399–417. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003

55. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M,Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science:practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

56. C. Ministerio de Energía, Energía 2050, (2016). http://www.energia2050.cl/en/. Accessed 12 Sept 2018

57. Iniciativa Escenarios Energéticos Argentina 2035, Escenarios Energéticos Argentina2035, (2015). http://www.escenariosenergeticos.org/. Accessed 12 Sept 2018

Noboa et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society (2018) 8:31 Page 17 of 17