Janssen, M. A., & Yap, X.-S. (2024). Governing Outer Space as a Commons is Critical for Addressing Commons on Earth. International Journal of the Commons, 18(1), pp. 32–38. Learn more

Yap, X.-S., Janssen, M. A., Aganaba, T., Tutton, R., Korpershoek, K., Profitiliotis, G., Rabitz, F., Subbiah, M. S., & Wagenknecht, L. (2023). Four Alternative Scenarios of Commons in Space: Prospects and Challenges. International Journal of the Commons, 17(1), pp. 390–410. Learn more

​

Abstract: The rapid expansion of human activities in outer space is likely to bring new economic, social, and political dilemmas in the next 50 to 100 years. Future governance will have to increasingly juggle earth-space social justice, resource trade-offs, and environmental sustainability issues. This poses new challenges to the governance of global commons, i.e. whether existing studies are fit to address commons in a global context and whether the governance of outer space commons (dis)integrates with Earth-bound sustainability governance. To explore these questions, this study uses scenario-building techniques to generate alternative future scenarios via a workshop conducted during the 2022 Commons in Space conference. We derived four future scenarios based on two major contextual conditions: (i) the degree of equity in resource distribution in space, and (ii) the degree of integration with Earth-bound sustainability, more specifically Earth system governance. The four alternative scenarios are (i) Space Cartel in which the use of space resources becomes dominated by the rich and powerful; (ii) Earth-centric Gold Rush in which the current ‘business as usual’ continues; (iii) Open Space (also Space Utopia) in which open access of space resources leads to thriving developments in space at the expense of sustainability on Earth; and finally, (iv) Earth-Space Sustainability in which challenges on Earth and in space are addressed through an integrative governance model. Based on the challenges identified from these scenarios, we discuss specific as well as cross-cutting implications for policy and governance to better address commons in space in the future.

Markard, J., Wells, P., Yap, X.-S. and van Lente, H. (2023). Unsustainabilities: A study on SUVs and Space Tourism and a research agenda for transition studies. Energy Research & Social Science, 106: 103302. Learn more 

​

Abstract: While transitions research has pursued a successful research agenda around how to improve established socio-technical systems in terms of sustainability, it has missed out, among other things, on innovations that make, or keep, societies less sustainable. In our paper, we explore two innovations in different stages of development: Sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and space tourism. SUVs entrench an existing socio-technical system and reproduce problematic practices, while space tourism might create a whole new, unsustainable system. We make three contributions. First, we introduce ‘unsustainabilities’ as a new term for technologies, institutions and practices that make, or keep, societies less sustainable. With this we direct attention to developments and structures that undermine ongoing sustainability transitions. Second, we distinguish unsustainabilities associated with socio-technical configurations, socio-technical systems, and meta-structures (spanning multiple systems). Third, we argue that precautionary policies will be needed in early stages of innovation, when there is still room to avoid unsustainable transitions.

Yap, X.-S., Heiberg, J., Truffer, B. (2023). The emerging global socio-technical regime for tackling space debris: A discourse network analysis. Acta Astronautica, 207, 445-454. Learn more

​

The global space sector has to increasingly consider sustainability concerns in the orbit, given the rising challenge of space debris. In which direction the management of space debris will develop in terms of technological solutions, policies, and actor strategies remains still unclear. This paper applies the concept of ‘global socio-technical regimes’ to better understand how actors in the global space sector frame, conceive, and legitimize the space debris problem. More specifically, we apply a discourse network analysis method – sociotechnical configuration analysis – to identify and map different value orientations by core actors over the last fifteen years. This analysis reveals three development stages in the discourse: a problem identification period (2007–2011), followed by the rise of national interests amidst increasing promises of space-based infrastructures (2012–2015), and finally, the emergence of a global socio-technical regime that increasingly connects space sustainability with Earth-bound sustainability (2016–2019). Based on our analysis, we expect that ensuring future earth-space sustainability will include a broader mix of challenges. Future approaches to space debris management will have to consider a broader and clearer problem framing to help inform effective policy making.

Miörner, J., Truffer, B., Binz, C., Heiberg, J., & Yap, X.-S. (2022). Guidebook for applying the Socio-Technical Configuration Analysis method. (pp. 1-19). (GEIST Working Paper; Vol. 2022, No. 1). Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions. Learn more

​

This working paper is part of the Socio-Technical Configuration Analysis (STCA) guidebook for beginners (see stca.guide). It serves as Chapter 1 of the guidebook, and introduces the conceptual and methodological foundations for the different analytical steps that are explained in subsequent chapters. We elaborate on the theoretical contexts in which socio-technical configurations, their dynamics and geographical variation play a key role and how this epistemological approach relates to well-established conceptual frameworks from innovation and transition studies. In STCA, statements or actions of actors that are reported in document stocks are aggregated into different forms of network or proximity map graphs, which can be interpreted as coherent storylines or strategies reflecting institutionalized socio-technical configurations shared by various actors. Shifts over time of these networks can then be interpreted as depicting transition dynamics, and comparisons across space as local variations of regime or innovation system structures. The paper introduces a coherent terminology to help researchers navigate through the different steps and software programs. It furthermore elaborates on a typology of research problems that can be analyzed through STCA and an overview on the generic steps that a researcher has to conduct when applying the method.

Yap, X.-S. (2021) Opportunities and Challenges of Space-based Infrastructures for Arctic Governance: Assessment from an Innovation System Perspective. In Kim, J.-D. and Morrison, C.E. (Eds.): Science, Technology and the Path Forward for a New Arctic, Chapter 17, p. 216 – 228. Busan and Hawaii: Korea Maritime Institute and East-West Center. Learn more