Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-3 (section)

=== 3.8.3 Feasibility in Light of Socio-technical Transitions ===

<div id="h2-40-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The limitations associated with quantitative low-carbon transition pathways stem from a predominant reliance on techno-economic considerations with a simplified or non-existent representation of the socio-political and institutional agreement. Accompanying the required deployment of low-carbon technologies will be the formation of new socio-technical systems ( [[#Bergek--2008|Bergek et al. 2008]] ). With a socio-technical system being defined as a cluster of elements comprising of technology, regulation, user practices and markets, cultural meaning, infrastructure, maintenance networks, and supply networks ( [[#Hofman--2004|Hofman et al. 2004]] ; [[#Geels--2005|Geels and Geels 2005]] ); the inter-relationship between technological systems and social systems must be comprehensively understood. It is of vital importance that the process of technical change must be considered in its institutional and social context so as to ascertain potential transition barriers which in turn provide an indication of pathway feasibility. In order to address the multitudinous challenges associated with low-carbon transition feasibility and governance, it has been opined that the robustness of evaluating pathways may be improved by the bridging of differing quantitative-qualitative analytical approaches ( [[#Haxeltine--2008|Haxeltine et al. 2008]] ; [[#Foxon--2010|Foxon et al. 2010]] ; [[#Hughes--2013|Hughes 2013]] ; [[#Wangel--2013|Wangel et al. 2013]] ; [[#Li--2015|Li et al. 2015]] ; [[#Turnheim--2015|Turnheim et al. 2015]] ; [[#Geels--2016a|Geels et al. 2016a]] ,b, 2020; [[#Moallemi--2017|Moallemi et al. 2017]] ; [[#De%20Cian--2020|De Cian et al. 2020]] ; [[#Li--2019|Li and Strachan 2019]] ). The rationale for such analytical bridging is to rectify the issue that in isolation each disciplinary approach can only generate a fragmented comprehension of the transition pathway with the consequence being an incomplete identification of associated challenges in terms of feasibility. Concerning low-carbon transition pathways generated by IAMs, it has been argued that a comprehensive analysis should include social scientific enquiry ( [[#Geels--2016a|Geels et al. 2016a]] , 2020; [[#van%20Sluisveld--2018b|van Sluisveld et al. 2018b]] ). The normative analysis of IAM pathways assists in the generation of a vision or the formulation of a general plan with this being complemented by socio-technical transition theory ( [[#Geels--2016a|Geels et al. 2016a]] ). Such an approach thereby allowing for the socio-political feasibility and the social acceptance and legitimacy of low-carbon options to be considered. Combining computer models and the multi-level perspective can help identify ‘transition bottlenecks’ ( [[#Geels--2020|Geels et al. 2020]] ). Similarly, increased resolution of integrated assessment models’ actors has led to more realistic narratives of transition in terms of granularity and behaviour ( [[#McCollum--2017|McCollum et al. 2017]] ; [[#van%20Sluisveld--2018b|van Sluisveld et al. 2018b]] ). Increased data availability of actual behaviour from smart technology lowers the barriers to representing behavioural change in computer simulations, and thus better represents crucial demand-side transformations ( [[#Creutzig--2018|Creutzig et al. 2018]] ). Increasing the model resolution is a meaningful way forward. However, integrating a much broader combination of real-life aspects and dynamics into models could lead to an increased complexity that could restrict them to smaller fields of applications ( [[#De%20Cian--2020|De Cian et al. 2020]] ).

Other elements of feasibility relate to social justice, which could be essential to enhance the political and public acceptability of the low-carbon transition. Reviewing the literature, one study finds that employing social justice as an orienting principle can increase the political feasibility of low-carbon policies ( [[#Patterson--2018|Patterson et al. 2018]] ). Three elements are identified as key: (i) protecting vulnerable people from climate change impacts, (ii) protecting people from disruptions of transformation, (iii) enhancing the process of envisioning and implementing an equitable post-carbon society.

<div id="3.8.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="enabling-factors"></span>