Facing the combined challenges of environmental, social, and technological change, long-lived infrastructure systems run the risk of getting locked into unsustainable, maladapted pathways. This is particularly challenging in the context of climate change, given projected climate impacts are characterized by high degrees of uncertainty (Hallegatte 2009). Lock-in is a concept developed by economic historians to describe how economies get tied into using inefficient technologies, and it is linked to the concept of path dependence (Arthur 1983; David 1985), which refers to the fact that infrastructure systems follow specific trajectories that are difficult and costly to change. As shown in Arthur (1989), these trajectories depend on historical circumstances, timing, and strategy as much as on optimality. In the 1990s, some investigations highlighted the need to approach the analysis of technological changes through coevolutionary approaches that recognize the technological systems influences and are influenced by the social, economic, and cultural setting in which they develop (Rip and Kemp 1998). Liebowitz and Margolis (1994) argued that the role of some elements of the system, such as network externalities, remains contested. Of particular interest is the extent to which favoring incumbent infrastructure systems limits the development capacity of socioeconomic groups such as communities, industries, or countries. While exploring the whole phase space of possible fundamental influences is impractical, the authors argue that it is still possible to avoid some lock-in by effectively utilizing existing anticipatory capacity. The paper elaborates on three ideas, firmly rooted in the scholarly literature and recent studies, which characterize one type of avoidable lock-in: (1) the observed dominance of experiential versus analytical anticipatory capacity of communities, industries, and countries in the governance of sociotechnical systems; (2) the existence of formal approaches to quantify the limits to adaptation in such systems; and (3) limitations of the impact and capacity approach to adaptation. The elements of an avoidable lock-in are then summarized and illustrated by an example. Finally, some conclusions are given on the implications of this type of avoidable lock-in and how it might increasingly affect policy decisions that have long-term implications, such as those related to long-lasting infrastructure systems and spatial planning.
Read full abstract