Peer-to-peer, community or collective self-consumption, and transactive energy markets offer new models for trading energy locally. Over the past five years, there has been significant growth in the amount of academic literature examining how these local energy markets might function. This systematic literature review of 139 peer-reviewed journal articles examines the market designs used in these energy trading models. A modified version of the Business Ecosystem Architecture Modelling framework is used to extract market model information from the literature, and to identify differences and similarities between the models. This paper examines how peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy markets are described in current literature. It explores the similarities and differences between these markets in terms of participation, governance structure, topology, and design. This paper systematises peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy market designs, identifying six archetypes. Finally, it identifies five evidence gaps which require future research before these markets could be widely adopted. These evidence gaps are the lack of: consideration of physical constraints; a holistic approach to market design and operation; consideration about how these market designs will scale; consideration of information security; and, consideration of market participant privacy.

In recent years, numerous studies have explored the opportunities and challenges for emerging decentralized energy systems and business models. However, few studies have focussed specifically on the economic and social value associated with three emerging models: peer-to-peer energy trading (P2P), community self-consumption (CSC) and transactive energy (TE). This article presents the findings of a systematic literature review to address this gap. The paper makes two main contributions to the literature. Firstly, it offers a synthesis of research on the social and economic value of P2P, CSC and TE systems, concluding that there is evidence for a variety of sources of social value (including energy independence, local benefits, social relationships, environmental responsibility and participation and purpose) and economic value (including via self-consumption of renewable electricity, reduced electricity import costs, and improved electricity export prices). Secondly, it identifies factors and conditions necessary for the success of these models, which include willingness to participate, participant engagement with technology, and project engagement of households and communities, among other factors. Finally, it discusses conflicts and trade-offs in the value propositions of the models, how the three models differ from one another in terms of the value they aim to deliver and some of the open challenges that require further attention by researchers and practitioners.