Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

ISSN: 0953-7325 (Print) 1465-3990 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Geographical perspectives on sociotechnical

transitions and emerging bio-economies:
introduction to a special issue

Kirby E. Calvert, Peter Kedron, Jennifer Baka & Kean Birch

To cite this article: Kirby E. Calvert, Peter Kedron, Jennifer Baka & Kean Birch (2017)
Geographical perspectives on sociotechnical transitions and emerging bio-economies:
introduction to a special issue, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29:5, 477-485, DOI:
10.1080/09537325.2017.1300643

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1300643

Published online: 14 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctas20

Download by: [86.190.198.141] Date: 15 March 2017, At: 09:29

TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, 2017
VOL. 29, NO. 5, 477–485
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1300643

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

Geographical perspectives on sociotechnical transitions and

emerging bio-economies: introduction to a special issue

Among the most pressing energy and environmental strategic challenges today is to identify and
deploy viable alternatives to fossil-fuel-based energy systems. The barriers to deployment are systema-
tic, leading to a state of affairs described as ‘carbon lock-in’ (Unruh 2000; Neuhoff 2007). Simply stated,
even if alternative energy systems are cost-competitive in theory, the prime movers that control their
diffusion throughout society – for example, conversion and distribution infrastructure; financing mech-
anisms; skilled labour force; attitudes toward particular kinds of energy production activities and energy
services – exhibit a preference for incumbent carbon-intensive fossil energy resources. Carbon lock-in
represents path dependencies within energy systems including sunk-cost in prevailing infrastructure
and entrenched political interests along with positively reinforcing relationships with broader system
dynamics, from global financial logics that continue to monetise unburned carbon through energy
futures contracts to our everyday practices and expectations about mobility, comfort, and overall
well-being that underpin regular visits to the gasoline station. All of this is to say that energy
systems are sociotechnical in nature, characterised by deep and often subtle interdependencies
between technological, social, political-economic, and cultural processes which operate across the
energy supply chain and at all scales of energy system operation (Miller, Richter, and O’Leary 2015).
Therein lies the grand strategic challenge for a sustainable energy transition. In order to develop
renewable energy resources, physical infrastructure will need to be disrupted along with the insti-
tutions, vested political-economic interests, and social values with which it is intertwined. Framing
the problem in this way has led to a shift in focus among analysts and policy-makers from innovation
systems, where the gaze is centred around the core functions of specific innovation networks in terms
of their ability to promote greener goods and services, to system innovation, where the gaze is broad-
ened to consider the historical, cultural, and material context that constrains and enables technologi-
cal development and implementation (Smith, Voß, and Grin 2010). However, this shift toward system
innovation has not diminished the importance of organisational or individual-level analysis. On the
contrary, analysing an agent’s strategic decision-making within this broadening context remains
central to understanding the catalysts and impediments of a sustainable energy transition. As
such, decision-makers are increasingly looking for strategic guidance and practical solutions from
multidisciplinary and multi-scalar perspectives (Sprenger 2014). The study of sociotechnical tran-
sitions (STTs), generally described as being ‘located at the disciplinary boundaries of social science
and technology studies’ (Adil and Ko 2016, 1026), has helped to provide a foundation for the
thought and practice of transition management.
What can geographers, and the field of geography more generally, contribute to our understand-
ing of STTs? The contributions to this special issue will, as a collective, begin to answer this question
from a range of perspectives. Following Simandan (2005), we build on an inclusive definition of
geography, as a loosely related set of theories and techniques focused on the study of Earth’s com-
plexity from a broadly defined spatial dimension. The field is often described as inherently interdis-
ciplinary, constituted by four core sub-fields: human geography, physical geography, human-
environment geography, and geographic information science and cartography (Pattison 1964; Robin-
son 1976; Zimmerer 2010). With increasing frequency and enthusiasm, geographers from each of
these sub-fields are contributing to a resurgence in resource studies generally, and energy studies

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

478 EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

in particular (Huber 2015; Calvert 2016). With this in mind, the primary objective of this introduction
and of the special issue as a whole is twofold. First, to bring geographical theories and practices into
further dialogue with STTs studies. Here, we build on recent observations that STT is deficient in its
treatment of geographical factors and suffers from an impoverished conceptualisation of space and
spatial relations (Smith, Voß, and Grin 2010; Hansen and Coenen 2016). Second, to identify ways in
which STT theories and practices can advance the field of energy geographies. On this front, the
SI provides an insight into how concepts and theories from STT can help to better ‘theorize the
broad role of energy in the social production of space’ (Huber 2015, 337) and to act as a focal
point for bridging critical and applied perspectives on energy and energy transitions (Calvert
2016). The special issue takes as its case study the emerging ‘advanced bio-economy’, one of the
most oft-cited pathways to a sustainable energy future (Birch and Calvert 2015).
This editorial introduction is laid out as follows. In the next section, we provide a fuller conceptu-
alisation and description of ‘advanced bio-economy’ in order to establish the empirical context and
practical significance of this special issue. Following this, we situate the contributions to this special
issue in their scholarly context with a review of literature in section three and a brief overview of the
contributions to this special issue in section four. In section five, we provide an insight on fruitful
avenues for future dialogue between geography and STTs studies. We conclude with a few thoughts
on the future of dialogue between analysts in technology, strategic management, and the various
strands of geography.

Advanced bio-economies as STTs

A bio-economy refers to a set of institutions and infrastructures which meet society’s material needs
and cultural desires through the production and conversion of biological matter into energy and pro-
ducts. By this definition, the term bio-economy describes most of human history along with a signifi-
cant proportion of the current global population who continue to rely on plant matter for heat,
energy, shelter, and other necessities. Emerging in recent years, however, is the notion of an
‘advanced’ bio-economy, promoted by institutions like the Organization for Economic Co-ordination
and Development and European Union (EU) along with governments all over the world (see Ehren-
feld and Kropfhäußer 2017). The notion of an advanced bio-economy exists in relation to a modern
fossil-fuel economy; that is, it indicates a transition from fossil fuels to biomass as the underpinning
natural resource base for socioeconomic activity. In other words, an advanced bio-economy implies
that biomass resources go well beyond the provision of basic energy and material services, for
example to replace liquid petroleum transport fuels and the petroleum-based plastics that have
come to underpin the material existence of developed economies. Furthermore, the advanced
bio-economy is premised on the idea of a ‘circular economy’, wherein biological resources are
used at a rate that is consistent with the rate at which they are regrown, and the only waste
streams leaving the economy are those that can be immediately processed into new biological
growth and therefore new production inputs.
For most of the twentieth century, efforts toward the advanced bio-economy were mostly
directed toward the energy sector, led by the United States and Brazil, in search of domestic replace-
ments for imported petroleum after the oil shocks of the 1970s (Solomon, Barnes, and Halvorsen
2007). These efforts are meeting a number of economic barriers. Producing biofuels at a scale suffi-
cient to replace fossil fuels is not widely competitive without direct government support or extensive
modifications to fuel distribution and conversion infrastructure. Furthermore, competition for arable
land to produce biofuel feedstock has disrupted existing land-based economies and the livelihoods
upon which they are based, leading to economic disruption and social tension. Even if these econ-
omic barriers are lifted, however, the logical extension of these efforts meets a biophysical limit.
The maximum quantity of energy that could be provided by biomass grown on land at a global
scale is estimated at 450 exajoules (EJ), assuming increased efficiencies in existing food systems
and new harvesting systems adopted by farmers and foresters all over the world are able to open
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 479

up vast tracts of arable land for dedicated biomass production (Berndes, Hoogwijk, and van den
Broek 2003; see also Deng et al. 2015). Global energy consumption, on the other hand, is already
at 500 EJ.
Advanced bio-economies are evolving under these limitations, and visions of their future are
being tempered. Most proponents have shifted from an economy-wide approach to a sector-
based approach, targeting lower-volume, higher-value opportunities such as ‘drop-in’ biofuels for air-
lines and/or biochemicals for plastics, pharmaceuticals, flavouring, cosmetics, detergents and other
products. As one example, the US Department of Energy has re-allocated funding from the large-
scale production of biofuels to small-scale production of the molecular building blocks that could
be processed into a hydrocarbon fuel or into any other hydrocarbon-based product such as pharma-
ceuticals, cosmetics, and detergents (see USDOE 2016). The ultimate goal is to displace petroleum in
the airline industry, but without the grand visions to power America’s entire vehicle fleet with bio-
fuels. Meanwhile, other proponents are trying to stretch the economic and biophysical limits of
bio-economies with new sources of biomass supply. Exemplary in this regard are efforts to identify
resource-efficient and productive strains of microalgae and to grow them in artificial environments
on offshore platforms (e.g. http://www.aljadix.com/Home/). This resource product strategy would
overcome the production limits of terrestrial environments while producing a source of biomass
that is easier to process into a fuel (though, very difficult to grow and handle at scale).
As this cursory overview has shown, the emergence of advanced bio-economies represents a
complex STT with deep geographical implications. The introduction of advanced biomass processing
technologies and new uses of biomass exhibits interdependencies with distribution and conversion
infrastructure; land and resource management systems; and land-based economies. Relative to fossil-
fuel systems, the spaces and scales at which energy and materials are produced changes dramati-
cally. Land-based economies are being restructured. New relationships between places are estab-
lished as biomass supply chains are re-oriented. With all of these in mind, it becomes intuitive that
concepts and tools from geography are required in order to understand and manage the transition
toward an advanced bio-economy, in whatever form it may take.

Geographic perspectives on STTs

STTs studies have its roots in innovations studies and evolutionary economics, and is most often oper-
ationalised through two complementary frameworks: technological innovation systems and the mul-
tilevel perspective (MLP) (see Coenen, Benneworth, and Truffer 2012). Fundamental debates within
and between these frameworks notwithstanding (e.g. about whether STTs are revolutionary or evol-
utionary; the role of agency in facilitating systemic change; how to conceptualise instability within
sociotechnical systems), the general goal of STT is to understand how social and technological
systems are coupled in order to learn the levers for, and the potential implications of, structural
change in systems of provision and consumption. The theoretical project of STT is connected to a
practical outlet in the form of ‘transition management’, wherein particular understandings of STT
translate into different kinds of strategic management propositions and practices (Loorbach 2007;
Loorbach and Rotmans 2010).
Strategic interventions into sociotechnical systems must be informed by a deep understanding of
the socio-political context into which new technologies and infrastructure are intended to ‘fit’, as well
as the broader social implications of their implementation and operation. From this premise, STT the-
orists and practitioners have been challenged to consider the (micro-)politics and power relations
(see Meadowcroft 2009) along with the role of social practices in shaping the way STTs are articulated.
In a sympathetic critique of STT generally and the MLP in particular, however, Smith, Voß, and Grin
(2010) note that few scholars were trying to understand geographical questions that are crucial to
improve understandings and practices of STTs (management). Why do transitions happen in one
place, and not another? Do small regional or local differences matter in explaining the pace, scale,
and outcome of energy transitions? And if so, which ones are the most important? Truffer and
480 EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

Coenen (2012) go further, to state that the STTs literature has a ‘naïve’ view of space, scale, and power,
in that these dimensions are treated simply as a backdrop to transition processes rather than central
to the process itself and its outcomes.
Recent scholarship has begun to address these shortcomings (see Hansen and Coenen 2016, for a
more complete review). The earliest contributions emerged from institutional economic geography,
studying processes and outcomes as they differed across regional contexts. Coenen, Benneworth,
and Truffer (2012), for example, point out that STT processes and outcomes are shaped by insti-
tutional embeddedness (territorial context) and aim to identify how STTs are dependent on spatial
context and in particular spatial differentiations in niche–regime interactions. The implication here
is that ‘a spatially variegated institutional landscape gives rise to some regions and nations forging
ahead in terms of sustainability transition processes while others lag behind’ (Coenen, Raven, and
Verbong 2010, 975; see also Loorbach and Rotmans 2010; Späth and Rohracher 2012).
Disentangling spatial variation in STT hinges, in large part, on developing a better understanding
of path dependence as a dynamic process simultaneously driven by regionally endogenous factors
interacting with exogenous forces (Martin 2010). Policy and innovation-oriented studies of regional
STTs make it clear that the spaces in which transitions unfold are not ‘containerised’. The processes
and outcomes of STTs are, at least in part, shaped at a distance through cross-scalar political-econ-
omic interdependencies (Coenen and Truffer 2012; Coenen, Benneworth, and Truffer 2012; Binz,
Truffer, and Coenen 2014; Kedron 2015). Bagchi-Sen and Kedron (2015), for example, demonstrate
how interdependencies and feedback loops between state-level and national-level policies gener-
ated spatial variation in the adoption and industrial structure of biofuel technologies in the United
States. Recognising the multi-scalar nature of political-economic relationships, Binz, Truffer, and
Coenen (2014) argue that innovation scholars should not establish scale boundaries and hierarchies
a priori; nor should innovation policy focus exclusively on fixed territorial boundaries in order to
account for the global spatial set-up of an innovation system.
Along these lines, Coenen, Raven, and Verbong (2010) argue that spatial proximity is an important
but not by itself necessary precondition for innovations, and unpack the role of social proximity in
strengthening regional innovation systems. They find that coordinating institutions and norms
(visions) across stakeholder groups is equally as important as enabling spatial agglomerations of pro-
ductive and creative activities. The work by Hansen and Coenen in this issue further exemplifies this
fact in the context of understanding the slow uptake of new biofuel technologies in the forestry
sector. Their work reveals that incumbent pulp and paper actors have very little shared value
systems and practices with emerging technologies and their associated markets and actors, thus
delaying uptake of potentially viable technologies. This is different from the agricultural sector,
which in some cases has a deeper and more direct connection with fuel markets (see Calvert
et al., forthcoming). These differences in social and institutional proximity partly explain differential
success in bio-economy transitions between the forestry and agricultural sectors.
How the geographies and futures of STTs are imagined shapes the emergence of those futures in
place. As several scholars have noted (e.g. Hilgartner 2007; Birch, Levidow, and Papaioannou 2010;
Levidow, Birch, and Papaioannou 2012), sociotechnical imaginaries of the bio-economy play an
important role in configuring its future politics and policies. Geographical imaginaries are important
here too, as Ponte and Birch (2014, 271) argue, in that sociotechnical imaginaries are spatially
bounded and ‘centred on specific geographical spaces, places and territories’. Gillon (2014) and
Palmer (2014) both illustrate the contrary ways that biofuels are represented, accounted for, and
understood in different jurisdictions – the United States and EU respectively. Palmer, for example,
shows how European bureaucracy actually constitutes particular discursive practices in the EU’s bio-
fuels policy. In a slightly different vein, Birch (2016) shows how competing visions of a bio-economy in
the Canadian context lead to the fragmentation of policy frameworks, providing a comparative analy-
sis to more frequent studies of places like the EU (e.g. Levidow, Birch, and Papaioannou 2012).
While much of the literature around spatial identities and imaginaries focuses on the national
scale, others emphasise the importance of imaginaries at the regional or local scale. As Späth and
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 481

Rohracher (2010) argue, spatial identities play a guiding role in such strategic visions, both within and
between regions. Moreover, Eaton, Gasteyer, and Busch (2014) demonstrate that ‘national sociotech-
nical imaginaries’ – that is, a ‘collective vision of a feasible, desirable future social order, provided by
technological projects’ (228) – are framed in different ways by different individuals according to
experiences and recollections within the regions and localities that might host said technological pro-
jects. As such, it is evident that connections to place are central to these visions, such that (actors’
participation in) STTs also represent acts of place-making, and not simply strategic decision-
making; that is, they represent ‘the process of reproducing, eliminating, and/or modifying the struc-
tures, identities, meanings, geographies, positionalities, and power relations associated with a given
place’ (Murphy 2015, 12; see also Marsden and Farioli 2015).

Contributions to the special issue

Clearly, the dialogue between STT and geography is established and growing. That said, there is more
work to be done to formally incorporate geographical perspectives into the analytical models and
management practices derived from STT, such as the MLP and energy transition management
(Smith, Voß, and Grin 2010; Coenen, Benneworth, and Truffer 2012). The works compiled in this
special issue represent a step in this direction. Broadly conceived, contributions to this special
issue can be usefully described in two themes.
The first theme builds directly from previous work in the (institutional) economic geography of
advanced bio-economies. Kedron and Bagchi-Sen identify the significance of a coherent industry
value chain that operates across space in helping to establish corn-biofuels and, in turn, limiting
the establishment of cellulosic-biofuels, which lacks such a network. Hansen and Coenen bring a
multi-scalar approach to understand the barriers to re-tool pulp and paper mills to establish an
industrial basis for the advanced bio-economy. Analysing firm-level behaviour at the nexus of
supply-chain management within different institutional contexts (Finland and Sweden), the
research highlights the role of (insufficient) social networks over spatial proximity in terms of
driving technology selection and other strategic decisions. Ehrenfeld and Kropfhäuẞer analyse
and compare the emergence of socio-political networks within three Central German states. Impor-
tantly, their work questions the optimistic assumptions about the benefits to rural areas of
biomass-based economic development. This suggests that, in addition to developing more
research around the geographical dimensions of the process of advanced bio-economies, further
research is required to understand the geographical dimensions of the (economic) outcomes
related to advanced bio-economies.
The second theme, related but distinct, is the role of applied geographic thought and practice in
strategic management decisions. Here, key points of emphasis include: (a) context dependence in
technological fitness and how this (should) inform strategic decisions and (b) the implications of
different space-economies (e.g. supply-chain organisation; number and spatial distribution of facili-
ties) on successful implementation. Where Hansen and Coenen discuss the importance of studying
firm-level behaviour across the value chain in the forestry sector in terms of its social dimension,
Blair et al. demonstrate the importance of studying (possible) firm-level behaviour across the value
chain in the forestry sector from a technical and economic perspective. Here, the authors combine
material flow analyses in a geographic information system (GIS) with regional geography and
market-level analyses in order to compare across a spatially centralised feedstock management
and technology implementation strategy relative to a spatially decentralised feedstock management
and technology implementation strategy.

Gaps and emerging perspectives

As the STT perspective foregrounds infrastructure and the society–technology relationship, it dis-
misses the society–environment relationship that is also critical to understanding transitions
482 EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

processes. Here, we wish to highlight perspectives from environment-society studies that offer
fruitful avenues of a more enriched dialogue between geography and STT. A burgeoning literature
in environmental economic geography (EEG) is exemplary in this regard. EEG attends specifically
to the economy–environment interface when studying technological innovations (Hayter 2008;
Bridge 2008; Patchell and Hayter 2013). The field is premised on the notion that environments
and economies are not separate systems that simply impose costs on each other; they are
deeply co-constitutive. In other words, biophysical processes and context ‘make a difference to
the functioning of economic processes’ (Bridge 2008, 79). This influence is simultaneously material
and discursive.
Materially, the ‘ … environmental qualities of the commodity or the ecological conditions of pro-
duction and consumption affect the way [supply] chains work’ (Bridge 2008, 79). Especially for
resource-based STT such as the advanced bio-economy, spatial variability of biophysical processes
establishes the opportunities and limits on sociotechnical pathways in certain regions and countries
(see Kedron and Bagchi-Sen 2017). Moreover, the quantity, quality, form, and timing of availability of
the resource base exert considerable influence over STT processes and outcomes such as technology
siting, supply-chain development, the distribution of costs and benefits, and even political agency
(Birch and Calvert 2015; see also Mitchell 2011).
This material interplay has considerable implications on how STTs unfold. The advanced bio-
economy, for example, is envisioned and deployed on the basis of biophysical processes that contrast
starkly with existing fossil-fuel economies. As fuel production systems transition from below-ground
to above-ground resources, with relatively lower energy density and less flexible mobility, our energy
systems will necessarily entail a new space-economy with a larger above-ground footprint (e.g. cul-
tivation, roads/rail for biomass distribution) and will reconfigure the (role of) actors and institutions
involved in fuel production (see Birch and Calvert 2015). For example, if only a single petroleum
refinery processing a modest 50,000–60,000 barrels of oil per day were to switch to biomass, thou-
sands of farms would be enrolled into its fuel production system, hundreds of thousands of new
trips by road or rail would be made to gather feedstock, and the fuel would be processed at three
to five facilities in order to overcome the dis-economies of scale associated with hauling biomass
long distances. Understanding how material properties co-constitute sociotechnical systems,
and differences between incumbent and alternatives, is critical to developing a more complete
understanding of STT.
Although the biophysical qualities of biomass and biomass production systems shape patterns of
access and control over land, the process and outcomes are by no means environmentally deter-
mined. The concept of ‘materiality’ reminds us that biophysical processes and context are not only
materially significant, but discursive as well. Indeed, biophysical processes and contexts are in
many cases a normative driver for STT and influence governance systems and decision-making; in
the terms of the MLP, particular framings of biophysical processes and contexts provide a ‘landscape
pressure’ for STT in the first place. Differences in the way climate change is framed in terms of causes,
urgency, and accountability, is an obvious example. Baka (2016) unpacks the social construction of
‘wastelands’ as a discursive process to identify areas considered ‘suitable’ for biofuel feedstock pro-
duction in India, and how this intertwines with the material properties of biomass with political pro-
cesses of enclosure and dispossession. As large-scale land acquisitions happen all over the world in
the name of advanced bio-economies, Neville and Dauvergne (2012, 287) provide an insight into how
maps, as one among many discursive tools, are ‘strategically wielded within accepted processes of
claim-making in legal and social forums’ in order to establish control over land (see also Nalepa
and Bauer 2012; Hesse, Baka, and Calvert 2016). In other words, understandings of ‘regimes’ within
the MLP, and the notion of lock-in and path dependence more generally, needs to go beyond tra-
ditional emphasis on institutions and infrastructure to account for our representations of, and per-
sonal relationships with, particular environments and landscapes. Insights gleaned from research
at the environment-society nexus reviewed above have helped to show that geographical context
is not simply a backdrop to STT, but is actually embedded into the process.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 483

Conclusion
More work needs to be done to bring a geographical sensibility to STTs studies, and a sociotechnical
perspective to geographical theory. The perspectives reviewed above, and represented through the
contributions that follow, represent a modest but significant step in this direction. Overall, the papers
in this special issue emphasise: (a) the material and political-economic factors shaping and shaped by
the spatial dispersion or concentration of bioenergy and biofuel production and (b) the path-depen-
dent and path-breaking characteristics shaping advanced bio-economies and their economic geogra-
phies. Looking forward, there is ample opportunity to expand the focus of STT beyond policy–
technology interdependencies to consider interdependencies at the policy–technology–geography
nexus. This work demands that STT studies consider geographical context not as a mere backdrop
to transitions but as embedded into the process and directly shaping its outcomes. In addition,
the role of GIS in technology analysis and in guiding strategic management decisions needs to be
further explored.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Kirby E. Calvert’s research programme focuses on the land-use implications of energy transitions and the trend toward
decentralised governance of energy systems. He is co-Director of the Community Energy Knowledge-Action Partnership
(www.cekap.ca). Calvert received his PhD in Geography (2013), working with the Queen’s Institute of Energy and Environ-
mental Policy to develop concepts and techniques to assess and spatially plan for local renewable energy generation. As
an assistant professor in the Department of Geography at The Pennsylvania State University (2013–2015), Dr Calvert
broadened his research programme to understand how existing and emerging renewable energy technologies interact
with landscapes and land-use systems. Currently, he is Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Guelph
where he is co-directing the Community Energy Knowledge and Action Partnership (CEKAP); a national partnership of
universities and non-academic partners which aims to facilitate local climate change mitigation and resilience building
through community energy planning.
Peter Kedron’s research focuses on how geographic differences in economic activity relate to the social and ecological
aspects of regions. His ongoing research into the emergence of renewable energy industries examines how innovation,
policy, and incumbent response shape geographic patterns of adoption and commercialisation.
Jennifer Baka’s research focuses on integrating political and industrial ecology to examine the social and environmental
impacts of energy systems. She has extensive experience analysing bioenergy and hydraulic fracturing energy systems.
Kean Birch’s research interests include the political economy of science, innovation, and the environment. He is the
author of We Have Never Been Neoliberal (2015, Zer0 Books), Innovation, Regional Development, and the Life Sciences
(2016, Routledge), Business and Society: A Critical Introduction (2017, Zed Books – with others), and A Research Agenda
for Neoliberalism (forthcoming 2017, Edward Elgar). He is also co-editor of The Handbook of Neoliberalism (2016, Routle-
dge – with Simon Springer and Julie MacLeavy).

References
Adil, A. M., and Y. Ko. 2016. “Socio-technical Evolution of Decentralized Energy Systems: A Critical Review and Implications
for Urban Planning and Policy.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57: 1025–1037.
Bagchi-Sen, S., and P. Kedron. 2015. “Governance of Biofuel Production in the United States.” In Routledge Handbook of
Politics and Technology, edited by U. Hilpert, 299–309. Routledge.
Baka, J. 2016. “Making Space for Energy: Wasteland Development, Enclosures, and Energy Dispossessions.” Antipode.
doi:10.1111/anti.12219.
Berndes, G., M. Hoogwijk, and R. van den Broek. 2003. “The Contribution of Biomass in the Future Global Energy Supply: A
Review of 17 Studies.” Biomass and Bioenergy 25: 1–28.
Binz, C., B. Truffer, and L. Coenen. 2014. “Why Space Matters in Technological Innovation Systems – Mapping Global
Knowledge Dynamics of Membrane Bioreactor Technology.” Research Policy 43: 138–155.
484 EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

Birch, K. 2016. “Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy.” Sustainability 8
(10): 1007–1016.
Birch, K., and K. Calvert. 2015. “Rethinking ‘Drop-in’ Biofuels: On the Political Materialities of Bioenergy.” Science and
Technology Studies 28: 52–72.
Birch, K., L. Levidow, and T. Papaioannou. 2010. “Sustainable Capital? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in
the European ‘Knowledge-based bio-Economy.’” Sustainability 2: 2898–2918.
Bridge, G. 2008. “Environmental Economic Geography: A Sympathetic Critique.” Geoforum 39: 76–81.
Calvert, K. 2016. “From ‘Energy Geography’ to ‘Energy Geographies’: Perspectives on a Fertile Academic Borderland.”
Progress in Human Geography 40: 105–125.
Calvert, K., J. Stephen, M. J. Blair, L. Cabral, R. Baxter, and W. Mabee. Forthcoming. “Assessing the Spatial, Economic and
Environmental Implications of Biorefining Technologies: Insights From North America.” In Handbook for the
Geographies of Energy, edited by B. Solomon and K. Calvert. Edward Elgar.
Coenen, L., P. Benneworth, and B. Truffer. 2012. “Toward a Spatial Perspective on Sustainability Transitions.” Research
Policy 41: 968–979.
Coenen, L., R. Raven, and G. Verbong. 2010. “Local Niche Experimentation in Energy Transitions: A Theoretical and
Empirical Exploration of Proximity Advantages and Disadvantages.” Technology in Society 32: 295–302.
Coenen, L., and B. Truffer. 2012. “Places and Spaces of Sustainability Transitions: Geographical Contributions to an
Emerging Research and Policy Field.” European Planning Studies 20: 367–374.
Deng, Y. Y., M. Koper, M. Haigh, and V. Dornburg. 2015. “Country-level Assessment of Long-term Global Bioenergy
Potential.” Biomass and Bioenergy 74: 253–267.
Eaton, W. M., S. P. Gasteyer, and L. Busch. 2014. “Bioenergy Futures: Framing Sociotechnical Imaginaries in Local Places.”
Rural Sociology 79: 227–256.
Ehrenfeld, W., and F. Kropfhäußer. 2017. “Plant-based Bioeconomy in Central Germany - A Mapping of Actors, Industries,
and Places.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 29: 514–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.
1140135
Gillon, S. 2014. “Science in Carbon Economies: Debating What Counts in US Biofuel Governance.” Environment and
Planning A 46 (2): 318–336.
Hansen, T., and L. Coenen. 2016. “The Geography of Sustainability Transitions: Review, Synthesis, and Reflections on an
Emergent Research Field.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001
Hayter, R. 2008. “Environmental Economic Geography in Institutional Perspective.” Geography Compass 2: 831–850.
Hesse, A., J. Baka, and K. Calvert. 2016. “Enclosure and Exclusion Within Emerging Forms of Energy Resource Extraction:
Shale Fuels and Biofuels.” In Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy, edited by T. Van de
Graaf, B. K. Sovacool, F. Kern, A. Ghosh, and M. T. Klare, 641–660. London, UK: Palgrave.
Hilgartner, S. 2007. “Making the Bioeconomy Measurable: Politics of an Emerging Anticipatory Machinery.” BioSocieties 2:
382–386.
Huber, M. 2015. “Theorizing Energy Geographies.” Geography Compass 9: 327–338.
Kedron, P. 2015. “Environmental Governance and Shifts in Canadian Biofuel Production and Innovation.” The Professional
Geographer 67 (3): 385–395.
Kedron, P., and S. Bagchi-Sen. 2017. “Limits to Policy-led Innovation and Industry Development in US Biofuels.”
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 29: 486–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1227066
Levidow, L., K. Birch, and T. Papaioannou. 2012. “EU Agri-innovation Policy: Two Contending Visions of the Knowledge-
based Bio-economy.” Critical Policy Studies 6 (1): 40–65.
Loorbach, D. 2007. Transition Management: A New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development. Utrecht: International
Books.
Loorbach, D., and J. Rotmans. 2010. “The Practice of Transition Management: Examples and Lessons from Four Distinct
Cases.” Futures 42: 237–246.
Marsden, T., and F. Farioli. 2015. “Natural Powers: From the Bio-economy to the Eco-economy and Sustainable Place-
making.” Sustainability Science 10: 331–344.
Martin, R. 2010. “Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography – Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to
Evolution.” Economic Geography 86 (1): 1–27.
Meadowcroft, J. 2009. “What About the Politics? Sustainable Development, Transition Management, and Long Term
Energy Transitions.” Policy Sciences 42: 323–334.
Miller, C. A., J. Richter, and J. O’Leary. 2015. “Socio-energy Systems Design: A Policy Framework for Energy Transitions.”
Energy Research and Social Science 6: 29–40.
Mitchell, T. 2011. Carbon Democracy. London: Verso.
Murphy, J. T. 2015. “Human Geography and Socio-technical Transition Studies: Promising Intersections.” Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions 17: 73–91.
Nalepa, Rachel A., and Dana Marie Bauer. 2012. “Marginal Lands: The Role of Remote Sensing in Constructing Landscapes
for Agrofuel Development.” Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2): 403–422.
Neuhoff, K. 2007. “Large Scale Deployment of Renewables.” In The New Energy Paradigm, edited by D. Helm, 288–319.
New York: Oxford University Press.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 485

Neville, K. J., and P. Dauvergne. 2012. “Biofuels and the Politics of Mapmaking.” Political Geography 31: 279–289.
Palmer, J. 2014. “Biofuels and the Politics of Land-use Change: Tracing the Interactions of Discourse and Place in
European Policy Making.” Environment and Planing A 46 (2): 337–352.
Patchell, J., and R. Hayter. 2013. “Environmental and Evolutionary Economic Geography: Time for EEG2?” Geografiska
Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 95 (2): 1–20.
Pattison, W. D. 1964. “‘The Four Traditions of Geography.’” Journal of Geography 63: 211–216.
Ponte, S., and K. Birch. 2014. “Introduction: Imaginaries and Governance of Biofueled Futures.” Environment and Planning
A 46 (2): 271–279.
Robinson, J. L. 1976. “‘A new Look at the Four Traditions of Geography.’” Journal of Geography 75: 520–530.
Simandan, D. 2005. New Ways in Geography. Timisoara: Editura Universitatii de Vest.
Smith, A., J. P. Voß, and J. Grin. 2010. “Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-level
Perspective and its Challenges.” Research Policy 39: 435–448.
Solomon, B. D., J. Barnes, and K. E. Halvorsen. 2007. “Grain and Cellulosic Ethanol: History, Economics, and Energy Policy.”
Biomass & Bioenergy 31: 416–425.
Späth, P., and H. Rohracher. 2010. “‘Energy Regions’: The Transformative Power of Regional Discourses on Sociotechnical
Futures.” Research Policy 39: 449–458.
Späth, P., and H. Rohracher. 2012. “Local Demonstrations for Global Transitions-dynamics Across Governance Levels
Fostering Sociotechnical Regime Change Towards Sustainability.” European Planning Studies 20: 461–479.
Sprenger, D. 2014. “Transdisciplinary Energy Research – Reflecting the Context.” Energy Research and Social Science 1: 65–
73.
Truffer, Bernhard, and Lars Coenen. 2012. “Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Regional Studies.”
Regional Studies 46 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.646164
Unruh, G. C. 2000. “Understanding Carbon Lock-in.” Energy Policy 28: 817–830.
USDOE (United States Department of Energy) 2016, February 8. “Energy Department Announces $11.3 Million Available
for Mega-Bio: Bioproducts to Enable Biofuels.” Accessed December 14, 2016. http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/
articles/energy-department-announces-113-million-available-mega-bio-bioproducts.
Zimmerer, K. 2010. “‘Retrospective on Nature-society Geography: Tracing Trajectories (1911–2010) and Reflecting on
Translations.’” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100: 1076–1094.

Kirby E. Calvert
Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
calvertk@uoguelph.ca http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6608-5786

Peter Kedron
Department of Geography, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

Jennifer Baka
Department of Geography, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3046-5039

Kean Birch
Innovation Policy Lab, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada