国际可持续转型地理研究框架问题与拓展方向

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2026.06.20260122

世界地理研究 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (6): 68-83.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2026.06.20260122

• 专栏：可持续转型地理的全球经验与中国实践 • 上一篇下一篇

国际可持续转型地理研究框架问题与拓展方向

胡晓辉¹^,²^,³(), 魏宇晨¹(), 董柯⁴

^1.南京师范大学地理科学学院，南京 210023
^2.江苏省地理信息资源开发与利用协同创新中心，南京 210023
^3.气候系统预测与变化应对全国重点实验室，南京 210023
^4.浙江师范大学地理与环境科学学院，金华 321004

收稿日期:2025-07-25 修回日期:2025-12-26 出版日期:2026-06-15 发布日期:2026-06-26
通讯作者: 魏宇晨
作者简介:胡晓辉（1982—），男，教授，博士生导师，研究方向为经济地理与区域发展， E-mail： huxh@njnu.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(42371174)

Framework problems and their future expansion directions of the international studies on geographies of sustainability transitions

Xiaohui HU¹^,²^,³(), Yuchen WEI¹(), Ke DONG⁴

^1.School of Geography, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
^2.Jiangsu Center for Collaborative Innovation in Geographical Information Resource Development and Application, Nanjing 210023, China
^3.State Key Laboratory of Climate System Prediction and Risk Management, Nanjing 210023, China
^4.College of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, China

Received:2025-07-25 Revised:2025-12-26 Online:2026-06-15 Published:2026-06-26
Contact: Yuchen WEI

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文聚焦国际可持续转型研究及其地理应用的概念框架问题，通过对当前该领域国际英文期刊论文的系统梳理和分析，旨在对当前国际该领域使用的六大核心概念框架（含战略利基管理、转型管理、多层次视角、技术创新系统、转型能动性及动态和全球创新系统）进行综合比较，从而揭示当前研究领域的视角框架特征和问题，特别指出当前研究存在的视角单一化问题，以及地理概念在理解与应用中解释力的不足。基于此，本文分别探讨了空间、尺度、自然、权力和公正五大地理学核心概念，并分析了它们融入转型地理研究框架的比较优势，进而提出地理概念更有效融入现有视角框架的可能方向。此外，本文指出当前转型地理研究在整合空间公正方面存在的不足，强调应将区域发展不平等问题置于研究的核心位置。

关键词: 可持续转型, 转型地理, 理论框架与视角, 整合拓展, 文献批判

Abstract:

The paper centers on key conceptual frameworks and their geographical applications in the international literature on sustainability transitions. Through a systematic and critical review of the English-speaking journal articles relating to sustainability transitions, the paper aims to comprehensively identify and examine six core conceptual frameworks currently being employed in this field. They are, namely, Strategic Niche Management, Transition Management, Multi-level Perspective, Technological Innovation Systems, Transition Agency and Change in Sustainability Transitions, and Global Innovation Systems. This review paper uncovers the advantages and limitations of these conceptual frameworks/perspectives, highlighting the problems of each framework and particularly the insufficient explanatory power owing to the facts of poorly or not integrating key geographical concepts into these frameworks. Building on such critique, the paper explores five core geographical concepts (space, scale, nature, power, and justice), and analyzes their comparative advantages when doing research on geographies of sustainability transitions. It also proposes potential directions and methodologies for how to properly integrate geographical concepts into the existing frameworks. Furthermore, this paper identifies several key gaps in the existing literature on geographies of sustainability transitions, by suggesting to engage more with the concept of spatial justice. It is particularly argued that regional inequalities should be placed at the core for future studies on geographies of sustainability transitions.

Key words: sustainability transitions, geographies of sustainability transitions, theoretical frameworks and perspectives, integrated expansion, critical review

胡晓辉, 魏宇晨, 董柯. 国际可持续转型地理研究框架问题与拓展方向[J]. 世界地理研究, 2026, 35(6): 68-83.

Xiaohui HU, Yuchen WEI, Ke DONG. Framework problems and their future expansion directions of the international studies on geographies of sustainability transitions[J]. World Regional Studies, 2026, 35(6): 68-83.

图/表 5

参考文献 79

[1]	MARKARD J, RAVEN R, TRUFFER B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, Special Section on Sustainability Transitions, 2012, 41 (6): 955-967.
[2]	TRUFFER B, HARALD R, PAULA K, et al. A perspective on the future of sustainability transitions research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,2022, 42 : 331-339.
[3]	KEMP R, SCHOT J, HOOGMA R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation. The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1998, 10 (2): 175-198.
[4]	GEELS F. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case study. Research Policy, 2002, 31 (8-9):1257-1274.
[5]	胡晓辉,张旭亮,杨宇. 可持续转型的地理视角及其分析框架优化. 地理研究, 2023, 42 (4):1117-1129.
	HU X, ZHANG X, YANG Y. Geographical perspectives of sustainability transitions: Towards an advanced analytical framework. Geographical Research, 2023, 42(4): 1117-1129.
[6]	GEELS F. Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2019, 39 : 187-201.
[7]	GEELS F. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2011, 1 (1): 24-40.
[8]	BINDER C, HINKEL J, BOTS P, et al. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and society, 2013, 18(4):26.
[9]	MARKARD J, GEELS F, RAVEN R. Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 2020, 15 (8): 081001.
[10]	SAVIN I, JEROEN. Main topics in EIST during its first decade: A computational-linguistic analysis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2021, 41 : 10-17.
[11]	NESARI M, MOHAMMAD N, SOROUSH G, et al. The evolution of socio-technical transition studies: A scientometric analysis. Technology in Society, 2022, 68 : 101834.
[12]	TRUFFER B, MURPHY J, RAVEN R.The geography of sustainability transitions: Contours of an emerging theme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2015, 17 : 63-72.
[13]	BOSCHMA R, COENEN L, FRENKEN K, et al. Towards a theory of regional diversification: Combining insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies. Regional Studies, 2017, 51(1): 31-45.
[14]	COENEN L, TRUFFER B. Places and spaces of sustainability transitions: Geographical contributions to an emerging research and policy field. European Planning Studies, 2012, 20 (3): 367-374.
[15]	COENEN L, BENNEWORTH P, TRUFFER B. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy,2012, 41 (6): 968-979.
[16]	HANSEN T, COENEN L.The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,2015, 17: 92-109.
[17]	WILLIAMS S, ANDRÉANNE D. Justice in energy transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,2019,31: 144-153.
[18]	GHOSH B, RAMOS-MEJÍA M, RAFAEL C, et al. Decolonising transitions in the global south: Towards more epistemic diversity in transitions research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Celebrating a decade of EIST: What's next for transition studies?, 2021, 41: 106-109.
[19]	HU X, TANG W, ZHANG X, et al. Small sacrifice for the greater good: Decoding just transition on the Chinese ground from a spatial perspective. Social Inclusion, 2024, 12: 7549.
[20]	董柯,胡晓辉,刘敏思. 公正转型的地理学研究进展与展望. 热带地理, 2025, 45(5):731-742.
	DONG K, HU X, LIU M. Research progress and future agendas on just transitions in geography. Tropical Geography, 2025, 45 (5): 731-742.
[21]	ROTMANS J, KEMP R, VAN A, et al. More evolution than revolution. Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 2001, 3 (1):15-31.
[22]	HEKKERT M, SUURS R, NEGRO S, et al. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2007, 74 (4): 413-432.
[23]	KÖHLER J, GEELS F, KERN F, et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2019, 31 : 1-32.
[24]	PESCH U. Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015, 90: 379-388.
[25]	BINZ C, TRUFFER B.Global Innovation Systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Research. Policy, 2017, 46 (7):1284-1298.
[26]	FITZGERALD L, DAVIES A. Creating fairer futures for sustainability transitions. Geography Compass, 2022, 16(10): e12662.
[27]	FUCHS M. Green skills for sustainability transitions. Geography Compass, 2024, 18(10): e70003.
[28]	VALE M, PEPONI A, CARVALHO L, et al. Are peripheral regions in troubled waters for sustainability transitions? A systematic analysis of the literature. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2024, 31(2): 116-131.
[29]	余振, 龚惠文, 胡晓辉. 可持续性转型地理研究综述与展望.地理科学进展, 2021, 40(3): 498-510.
	YU Z, GONG H, HU X. The geography of sustainability transitions: A sympathetic critique and research agenda. Progress in Geography, 2021, 40(3): 498-510.
[30]	BÖGEL P, AUGENSTEIN K, LEVIN-KEITEL M, et al. An interdisciplinary perspective on scaling in transitions: Connecting actors and space. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2022, 42: 170-183.
[31]	SHARMA V, JULIA L. Just transition out of coal-fired power: Policy lessons from Australia's automotive sector closure. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2024, 51:100835.
[32]	LAWHON M, MURPHY J. Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology. Progress in Human Geography,2012, 36 (3): 354-378.
[33]	WIECZOREK A. Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 2018, 84: 204-216.
[34]	PEREIRA D, BARBIERI J. Innovation and sustainability in the supply chain of a cosmetics company: A case study. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2012, 7(2): 144-156.
[35]	SMITH N. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. 3rd ed. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2010.
[36]	HARVEY D. Singulières Modernités. Paris: Les Prairies ordinaires, 2012.
[37]	GUPTA J, CLAUDIA P. Global water governance in the context of global and multilevel governance: Its need, form, and challenges. Ecology and Society, 2013, 18 (4): 53.
[38]	SWYNGEDOUW E, HEYNEN N. Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode, 2003, 35 (5): 898-918.
[39]	PULVER S, ULIBARRI N, SOBOCONSKI K, et al. Frontiers in socio-environmental research: Components, connections, scale, and context. Ecology and Society, 2018, 23(3):23.
[40]	ZHOU Z, CHUNG C, XU J. Geographies of green industries: The interplay of firms, technologies, and the environment. Progress in Human Geography, 2023, 47(5): 680-698.
[41]	ROBBINS P. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2012.
[42]	AVELINO F. Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance,2017,27 (6): 505-520.
[43]	GEELS F, JOHAN S. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 2007, 36 (3): 399-417.
[44]	AVELINO F, JAN R. Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory,2009, 12 (4): 543-569.
[45]	HARVEY D. Géographie de la Domination: Capitalisme et Production de L'espace. Paris: Éditions Amsterdam, 2018.
[46]	SOVACOOL B, ANDREW H, et al. The whole systems energy injustice of four European low-Carbon transitions. Global Environmental Change,2019, 58 : 101958.
[47]	SOVACOOL B, MATTHEW B, LUCY B, et al. New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy, 2017, 105: 677-691.
[48]	FRASER N. Qu'est-ce Que La Justice Sociale? : Reconnaissance et Redistribution. Paris: La Découverte, 2005.
[49]	WALKER G. Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012.
[50]	HOLIFIELD R, JAYAJIT C, et al. The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice. Routledge Handbooks. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group,2018.
[51]	LEFEBVRE H. La Production de L'espace. Paris: Anthropos, 2000.
[52]	HARVEY D. Géographie et Capital. Vers un Matérialisme Historico-Géographique. Paris: Syllepse, 2010:280:737.
[53]	BACKOUCHE I, FABRICE R, SYLVIE T, et al. Dimension Spatiale Des Inégalités. Regards Croisés Des Sciences Sociales. Rennes: Presses Universities de Rennes,2011.
[54]	PESCH U, VERNAY A, VAN B, et al. Niche entrepreneurs in urban systems integration: On the role of individuals in niche formation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2017, 49(8): 1922-1942.
[55]	EHNERT F, KERN F, BORGSTRÖM S, et al. Urban sustainability transitions in a context of multi-level governance: A comparison of four European states. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2018, 26: 101-116.
[56]	DEWALD U, FROMHOLD-EISEBITH M. Trajectories of sustainability transitions in scale-transcending innovation systems: The case of photovoltaics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2015, 17: 110-125.
[57]	HEIBERG J, TRUFFER B. The emergence of a global innovation system–A case study from the urban water sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2022, 43: 270-288.
[58]	FRAGKOU M, BUDDS J. Desalination and the disarticulation of water resources: Stabilising the neoliberal model in Chile. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2020, 45(2): 448-463.
[59]	RAVEN R, JOHAN S, FRANS B. Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2012, 4 : 63- 78.
[60]	RAMILLER A, PATRICK S. Scale limits to sustainability: Transdisciplinary evidence from three Danish cases. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2018, 27: 48-58.
[61]	NEWIG J, TIMOTHY M. Scale in environmental governance: Moving from concepts and cases to consolidation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2017, 19 (5): 473-479.
[62]	BRENNER N. The urban question: Reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2000, 24 (2): 361-378.
[63]	SWYNGEDOUW E. Scaled geographies: Nature, place, and the politics of scale. En Scale and Geographic Inquiry, 2004: 129-153.
[64]	VERMUNT D, NEGRO S, VAN L, et al. Sustainability transitions in the agri-food sector: How ecology affects transition dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2020, 36: 236-249.
[65]	JEREZ B, GARCÉS I, TORRES R. Lithium extractivism and water injustices in the Salar de Atacama, Chile: The colonial shadow of green electromobility. Political geography, 2021, 87: 102382.
[66]	TÖRNBERG A. Combining transition studies and social movement theory: Towards a new research agenda. Theory and Society, 2018, 47 (3): 381-408.
[67]	BRITTON J, JANETTE W. Institutional work and social skill: The formation of strategic action fields for local energy systems in Britain. EnvironmentalInnovation and Societal Transitions, 2024, 50 : 100789.
[68]	GEELS F. Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary triple embeddedness framework. Research Policy, 2014, 43 (2): 261-277.
[69]	BVAN B, HÖFFKEN J. The urgency of climate action and the aim for justice in energy transitions-dynamics and complexity. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2023, 48: 100763.
[70]	PALLE A. Bringing geopolitics to energy transition research. Energy Research & Social Science, 2021, 81: 102233.
[71]	NEWELL P. Towards a global political economy of transitions: A comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2020, 34 : 344-345.
[72]	WOLFRAM M, MIRIAM K. Gender in sustainability transition studies: Concepts, blind spots and future orientations. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2023, 46: 100686.
[73]	MARTISKAINEN M, JENKINS K, BOUZAROVSKI S, et al. A spatial whole systems justice approach to sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2021, 41: 110-112.
[74]	HUANG P, HU X. Experimenting with ecological civilisation on the ground: The green transformation of a resource-based city in China//HAARSTAD H, et al.Haste: The Slow Politics of Climate Urgency. London: UCL Press, 2023: 93-104.
[75]	LAIGLE L, MOREAU S. Justice et environnement: Les citoyens interpellent le politique. Gollion: Infolio, 2018.
[76]	NEWELL P, DUSTIN M. The political economy of the 'just transition'. The Geographical Journal,2013, 179 (2): 132-140.
[77]	JOHN D, DERAKHSHI E. Low carbon mobility transitions and justice: A case of Costa Rica. Development, 2022, 65(1): 71-77.
[78]	JENKINS K, MCCAULEY D, HEFFRON R, et al. Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy research & social science, 2016, 11: 174-182.
[79]	KANGER L. The spatial dynamics of deep transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2022, 44 : 145-162.

理论框架或视角	代表文章	核心观点	分析目标	实践目标	转型阶段	转型维度
战略利基管理 (SNM)	Kemp 等(1998)	技术变革主导技术制度的转型，融合了工程实践和社会规则与信念	理解技术变革如何融入并影响塑造主导技术制度	为政策制定者确定方向，分析技术-制度转型过程	初始阶段：创新的兴起和利基的形成	技术创新
转型管理 (TM)	Rotmans 等(2001)	将转型视为社会变革，转型是存量长期发展和流量短期发展的结果	分析转型的社会和制度层面，及制度变化对转型的影响	明确转型管理策略与目标，克服长期目标与短期目标的冲突	所有过程如下：渐进变化和长期视角	公共政策设计
多层次视角 (MLP)	Geels (2002)	转型是创新利基、社会-技术体制和远景三个层面的社会-技术系统转型	多层次视角作为理解技术转型的分析和启发式框架	识别转型过程特征和机制，理解惯性，确定如何克服	所有过程：不同层次因果互动的渐进变化	多层次维度
技术创新系统 (TIS)	Hekkert 等(2007)	技术变革是一个社会动态过程，基于创新系统的转型和企业家的行动	识别创新系统的功能，聚焦系统中实现技术变革的过程	随时间绘制这些功能，以刺激和引导创新及技术变革	初始阶段：创造创新	技术变革
转型能动性及动态(ACST)	Udo & Pesch (2015)	基于行动者的方法，研究个体动机以及话语在可持续转型中的作用	提出话语锚定概念，以理解创新形成和规模扩大过程	开展新的实证研究，聚焦于行动者在转型中的作用	创新的形成(利基)及其规模的扩大过程	个体能动性和话语
全球创新系统 (GIS)	Binz &Truffer (2017)	强调多尺度网络作用以及不同行业创新过程和转型推动的系统性差异	理解全球层面创新的关键资源创建和整合，以制定政策	提出可操作的系统关联性视角，分析跨国背景下技术创新的关联共演过程	所有过程	行业领域和全球维度

理论框架或视角	代表文章	核心观点	分析目标	实践目标	转型阶段	转型维度
战略利基管理 (SNM)	Kemp 等(1998)	技术变革主导技术制度的转型，融合了工程实践和社会规则与信念	理解技术变革如何融入并影响塑造主导技术制度	为政策制定者确定方向，分析技术-制度转型过程	初始阶段：创新的兴起和利基的形成	技术创新
转型管理 (TM)	Rotmans 等(2001)	将转型视为社会变革，转型是存量长期发展和流量短期发展的结果	分析转型的社会和制度层面，及制度变化对转型的影响	明确转型管理策略与目标，克服长期目标与短期目标的冲突	所有过程如下：渐进变化和长期视角	公共政策设计
多层次视角 (MLP)	Geels (2002)	转型是创新利基、社会-技术体制和远景三个层面的社会-技术系统转型	多层次视角作为理解技术转型的分析和启发式框架	识别转型过程特征和机制，理解惯性，确定如何克服	所有过程：不同层次因果互动的渐进变化	多层次维度
技术创新系统 (TIS)	Hekkert 等(2007)	技术变革是一个社会动态过程，基于创新系统的转型和企业家的行动	识别创新系统的功能，聚焦系统中实现技术变革的过程	随时间绘制这些功能，以刺激和引导创新及技术变革	初始阶段：创造创新	技术变革
转型能动性及动态(ACST)	Udo & Pesch (2015)	基于行动者的方法，研究个体动机以及话语在可持续转型中的作用	提出话语锚定概念，以理解创新形成和规模扩大过程	开展新的实证研究，聚焦于行动者在转型中的作用	创新的形成(利基)及其规模的扩大过程	个体能动性和话语
全球创新系统 (GIS)	Binz &Truffer (2017)	强调多尺度网络作用以及不同行业创新过程和转型推动的系统性差异	理解全球层面创新的关键资源创建和整合，以制定政策	提出可操作的系统关联性视角，分析跨国背景下技术创新的关联共演过程	所有过程	行业领域和全球维度

框架名称	空间提及	核心论文中有关空间的定义	概念理解
战略利基管理	明确提及	利基是技术创新的受保护空间/空间是技术适应的合适制度环境/空间是新技术的试错场所	抽象概念/社会-制度场所
转型管理	未提及	论文中未提及空间相关内容	缺失
多层次视角	明确提及	利基为构建支持创新的社会网络和合法性提供空间/远景则是指社会的物质背景和结构性空间安排	抽象概念/社会-制度场所
技术创新系统	未提及/模糊	创新依赖于全球各地研究取得的进展和扩散吸收	背景
转型能动性与变革	明确提及	空间是行动者可以引发变化并创建新观点和制度化过程的话语场所	抽象概念
全球创新系统	明确提及	创新系统的空间配置基于行动者网络和制度，而非地理边界和区位	抽象概念

框架名称	空间提及	核心论文中有关空间的定义	概念理解
战略利基管理	明确提及	利基是技术创新的受保护空间/空间是技术适应的合适制度环境/空间是新技术的试错场所	抽象概念/社会-制度场所
转型管理	未提及	论文中未提及空间相关内容	缺失
多层次视角	明确提及	利基为构建支持创新的社会网络和合法性提供空间/远景则是指社会的物质背景和结构性空间安排	抽象概念/社会-制度场所
技术创新系统	未提及/模糊	创新依赖于全球各地研究取得的进展和扩散吸收	背景
转型能动性与变革	明确提及	空间是行动者可以引发变化并创建新观点和制度化过程的话语场所	抽象概念
全球创新系统	明确提及	创新系统的空间配置基于行动者网络和制度，而非地理边界和区位	抽象概念

框架名称	存在情况	尺度的定义	尺度之间的关系
战略利基管理	未提及	创新在被称为利基的地方尺度上产生，利基被定义为“新技术的本地培育空间”。利基管理政策的目标是扩大创新规模	线性-公共政策应用
转型管理	明确提及	转型在3个层次(微观、中观和宏观)展开。这些层面与利基、制度和远景概念相关	线性-政府的作用
多层次视角	明确提及	转型被定义为在微观利基、中观体制和宏观远景这3个层面上的变异、选择、保留和重配过程	线性-合法化过程
技术创新系统	未提及	最重要的过程发生在微观层面(创新系统的功能形成尺度)	线性-倡导网络联盟
转型能动性与动态	明确提及	存在不同程度的话语固定层面。行动者在利基层面比在制度层面更易识别	线性-意见分享扩散
全球创新系统	明确提及	创新的关键系统资源在全球、本地和国家层面创建	多尺度关联与同时性

国际可持续转型地理研究框架问题与拓展方向

Framework problems and their future expansion directions of the international studies on geographies of sustainability transitions

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 79

相关文章 3

编辑推荐

Metrics

框架名称	与自然相关的可持续性的定义	自然与社会关系
战略利基管理	可持续性是对环境友好的技术	分离
转型管理	可持续性被定义为比旧有（汽车、能源等）更清洁的消费和生产实践	交织
多层次视角	可持续性被理解为环境领域的社会技术变革	交织
技术创新系统	未提及	分离或替代
转型能动性及动态	可持续性是一种必须强加给参与创新过程的行动者的外部价值	交织
全球创新系统	清洁技术行业是创新系统的简单示例	无

框架	存在情况	权力的定义
战略利基管理	未提及	无定义
转型管理	隐含提及	社会行动者可以阻碍转型，内部发展冲突后制度可能发生变化
多层次视角	隐含提及	创新扩大规模过程中存在张力，出现问题和张力时制度发生变化
技术创新系统	隐含提及	其中一个功能涉及转型“合法化”，用来支撑新技术的社会嵌入
转型能动性及动态	整合提及	对转型理论中行动者作用提出新的批判，关注话语力量而非权力
全球创新系统	明确提及	权力是行动者在创新构建过程中因竞争而产生的张力的体现

[1]	胡晓辉, 黄平, 钟璟霖, 周政可, 刘敏思, 余振, 毛熙彦, 许吉黎, 韩梦瑶, 赵丹阳, 胡志强, 段冶, 邹冠男, 李晨, 胡洋, 马诗萍, 郭杰, 张梦竹, 方达. 可持续转型地理研究与中外互鉴笔谈[J]. 世界地理研究, 2026, 35(6): 48-67.
[2]	董柯, 胡晓辉. 转型地理视角下农村光伏技术扩散研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2025, 34(9): 130-142.
[3]	陈奕嘉, 谭俊涛. 欧洲经济地理学区域创新政策研究进展[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(2): 259-269.