TH
T. Hoppe
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
112 records found
1
Towards effective and just energy transitions in underprivileged neighbourhoods
A double-eyed and sociotechnical approach
Short survey
(2026)
-
John Grin, Joep Frens, Thomas Hoppe, Erik Jansen, Thaleia Konstantinou, Lenneke Kuijer, Roel Loonen, Stan Majoor, Floris Vermeulen, More Authors
Especially in underprivileged neighbourhoods (UNs), with high renovation urgency and thus opportunities to kick-start the energy transition (ET), residents tend to resist retrofit measures. This is due to general lack of trust in government, housing corporations, and other key players. We contend that a negative spiral of ET effectiveness and justice is rooted in two mismatches, between (i) UN resident needs and everyday practices and customary ET solutions and between (ii) UN residents and the key players running the ET. This may produce a downward spiral of ineffective solutions, declining trust and inequalities. We argue that fundamentally addressing these mismatches may reverse this downward spiral into an upward one, and then present our Just PREPARE approach to that challenge. At the core of this approach are (i) ‘double-eyed’ methods to help articulate residents' needs and practices in their own context, which then inform the design of the technological and governance aspects of solutions and (ii) participatory settings and processes for planning the ET. We elaborate this approach and present some illustrative preliminary experiences from a transdisciplinary research project in which we implemented it in four UNs in the Netherlands. We end with some recommendations for future research.
...
Especially in underprivileged neighbourhoods (UNs), with high renovation urgency and thus opportunities to kick-start the energy transition (ET), residents tend to resist retrofit measures. This is due to general lack of trust in government, housing corporations, and other key players. We contend that a negative spiral of ET effectiveness and justice is rooted in two mismatches, between (i) UN resident needs and everyday practices and customary ET solutions and between (ii) UN residents and the key players running the ET. This may produce a downward spiral of ineffective solutions, declining trust and inequalities. We argue that fundamentally addressing these mismatches may reverse this downward spiral into an upward one, and then present our Just PREPARE approach to that challenge. At the core of this approach are (i) ‘double-eyed’ methods to help articulate residents' needs and practices in their own context, which then inform the design of the technological and governance aspects of solutions and (ii) participatory settings and processes for planning the ET. We elaborate this approach and present some illustrative preliminary experiences from a transdisciplinary research project in which we implemented it in four UNs in the Netherlands. We end with some recommendations for future research.
Introducing a typology of energy regions
A systematic literature review
Low-carbon energy transitions are being increasingly developed at sub-national or regional levels, forming, thus, energy regions. More energy regions have been formed as energy systems become more decentralized, and national governments devolve decision-making power to local authorities. Energy regions have been studied in several countries, but no study has yet overviewed these regions' variety, transition process, and governance approach. It is important to draw lessons for other cases worldwide, like coal and carbon-intensive regions, to understand what type of regions and how they have stimulated their energy transition. Thus, this study investigated i) the concepts of energy regions that have been published and ii) the way energy regions have transitioned in terms of governance arrangements and innovation processes. A systematic literature review was conducted covering forty-seven academic publications and three grey literature reports of energy regions in ten countries. This review covered three academic (sub-)disciplines: i.e. sustainability transitions, regional studies, and innovation studies. Results show five concepts of energy regions: city-regions, peripheralized regions, coal and carbon-intensive regions, learning regions, and renewable energy regions. The formed typology shows the possible transition pathways that regions can follow. Interestingly, only those energy regions that adopted social innovations had the potential to empower their region, its organizations, and its citizens. Finally, recommendations for practitioners in similar regions worldwide are outlined to help overcome obstacles and advance their low-carbon transition.
...
Low-carbon energy transitions are being increasingly developed at sub-national or regional levels, forming, thus, energy regions. More energy regions have been formed as energy systems become more decentralized, and national governments devolve decision-making power to local authorities. Energy regions have been studied in several countries, but no study has yet overviewed these regions' variety, transition process, and governance approach. It is important to draw lessons for other cases worldwide, like coal and carbon-intensive regions, to understand what type of regions and how they have stimulated their energy transition. Thus, this study investigated i) the concepts of energy regions that have been published and ii) the way energy regions have transitioned in terms of governance arrangements and innovation processes. A systematic literature review was conducted covering forty-seven academic publications and three grey literature reports of energy regions in ten countries. This review covered three academic (sub-)disciplines: i.e. sustainability transitions, regional studies, and innovation studies. Results show five concepts of energy regions: city-regions, peripheralized regions, coal and carbon-intensive regions, learning regions, and renewable energy regions. The formed typology shows the possible transition pathways that regions can follow. Interestingly, only those energy regions that adopted social innovations had the potential to empower their region, its organizations, and its citizens. Finally, recommendations for practitioners in similar regions worldwide are outlined to help overcome obstacles and advance their low-carbon transition.
Since 1994, Colombian mayors have been legally held accountable for election promises and goal achievement in office; non-compliance or underperformance may trigger recalls. In several Latin American countries, civil-society coalitions striving for urban sustainability have successfully lobbied for adopting similar rules in more than 60 cities. We conducted a longitudinal, comparative case study, based on documents and 16 interviews, to study the characteristics and effects of the accountability mechanisms emerging in Bogotá, Córdoba, Guadalajara, and São Paulo. Results show that goal-setting and reporting requirements are beneficial to urban governance in terms of increasing programmatic policies, intra-municipal cooperation, civil society involvement, and citizen participation. However, unintended consequences, including a rigid, short-term focus on targets at the expense of long-term objectives, were also observed. This suggests trade-offs concerning accountability and flexibility and dilemmas in the choice of indicators; outcome-based targets foster long-term, holistic policymaking yet output targets align more easily to local government competencies and citizen demands. The engagement of strong local civil society organisations facilitates the effective implementation of mayoral accountability mechanisms. Our findings offer insights to practitioners and researchers of democratic innovations and international policy frameworks including localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The design of accountability mechanisms at the city level in diverse contexts and alternatives to the dominant model of voluntary goal-setting require further attention and research.
...
Since 1994, Colombian mayors have been legally held accountable for election promises and goal achievement in office; non-compliance or underperformance may trigger recalls. In several Latin American countries, civil-society coalitions striving for urban sustainability have successfully lobbied for adopting similar rules in more than 60 cities. We conducted a longitudinal, comparative case study, based on documents and 16 interviews, to study the characteristics and effects of the accountability mechanisms emerging in Bogotá, Córdoba, Guadalajara, and São Paulo. Results show that goal-setting and reporting requirements are beneficial to urban governance in terms of increasing programmatic policies, intra-municipal cooperation, civil society involvement, and citizen participation. However, unintended consequences, including a rigid, short-term focus on targets at the expense of long-term objectives, were also observed. This suggests trade-offs concerning accountability and flexibility and dilemmas in the choice of indicators; outcome-based targets foster long-term, holistic policymaking yet output targets align more easily to local government competencies and citizen demands. The engagement of strong local civil society organisations facilitates the effective implementation of mayoral accountability mechanisms. Our findings offer insights to practitioners and researchers of democratic innovations and international policy frameworks including localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The design of accountability mechanisms at the city level in diverse contexts and alternatives to the dominant model of voluntary goal-setting require further attention and research.
A framework to analyze inclusion in smart energy city development
The case of Smart City Amsterdam
In response to unprecedented global urbanization, the smart city concept has emerged, leveraging ICT to enhance municipal efficiency and improve the quality of urban life. The concept of smart energy city (SEC) is closely related to smart cities, however, energy system development in a smart city context is often found eluding certain segments of society, which calls for more attention to inclusion in SEC development. In this paper, the research question is: How can inclusion be effectively integrated into a framework of SEC design? A framework is developed comprising three key principles - energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. These principles are aligned with collaboration among stakeholders, smart energy solutions applications, and integration of these solutions. The framework is illustrated using two real-world cases of demonstration projects in the City of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The paper concludes by presenting several strategies for fostering inclusion in SEC development. They pertain to including utilization of the framework as a guideline to promote inclusion, establishing a clear understanding of inclusion, and involving all relevant stakeholders, including citizens' rights from the project's inception, and fostering transparency regarding the objectives, interests, and individual stakeholders' value.
...
In response to unprecedented global urbanization, the smart city concept has emerged, leveraging ICT to enhance municipal efficiency and improve the quality of urban life. The concept of smart energy city (SEC) is closely related to smart cities, however, energy system development in a smart city context is often found eluding certain segments of society, which calls for more attention to inclusion in SEC development. In this paper, the research question is: How can inclusion be effectively integrated into a framework of SEC design? A framework is developed comprising three key principles - energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. These principles are aligned with collaboration among stakeholders, smart energy solutions applications, and integration of these solutions. The framework is illustrated using two real-world cases of demonstration projects in the City of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The paper concludes by presenting several strategies for fostering inclusion in SEC development. They pertain to including utilization of the framework as a guideline to promote inclusion, establishing a clear understanding of inclusion, and involving all relevant stakeholders, including citizens' rights from the project's inception, and fostering transparency regarding the objectives, interests, and individual stakeholders' value.
Transnational municipal networks (TMNs) such as C40 or ICLEI have been posited to foster city-to-city learning in accelerating climate change mitigation and, thereby, facilitating the transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. However, the existing literature on the role of climate networks has hardly examined the relationship between membership and climate change mitigation outcomes and impact, without which it is premature to be optimistic about TMNs role in the net-zero transition. In this article, we address this gap through a mixed methods analysis in the case of the C40 cities initiative. We combine a staggered difference-in-differences regression to shed light on the relationship between membership in the C40 initiative and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during 2002–18 in over 700 OECD cities with a qualitative cross-case analysis of Bogotá, Colombia and Copenhagen, Denmark to unpack how and when the C40 initiative influences climate action at the city level. Results show that there is no statistically significant relationship between C40 membership and CO2 emissions, indicating that cities in the C40 initiative may not have reduced CO2 emissions more than other OECD cities, after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, weather, country characteristics, city fixed effects, time fixed effects, and city-specific annual time trends. Furthermore, the complementary qualitative analysis showed the C40 network's direct intervention is limited to increasing or maintaining the ambition of cities; the network was found to have limited influence on city-level policy planning and implementation. There is a need to further study and address local policy implementation for realizing net-zero in relation to TMN membership.
...
Transnational municipal networks (TMNs) such as C40 or ICLEI have been posited to foster city-to-city learning in accelerating climate change mitigation and, thereby, facilitating the transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. However, the existing literature on the role of climate networks has hardly examined the relationship between membership and climate change mitigation outcomes and impact, without which it is premature to be optimistic about TMNs role in the net-zero transition. In this article, we address this gap through a mixed methods analysis in the case of the C40 cities initiative. We combine a staggered difference-in-differences regression to shed light on the relationship between membership in the C40 initiative and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during 2002–18 in over 700 OECD cities with a qualitative cross-case analysis of Bogotá, Colombia and Copenhagen, Denmark to unpack how and when the C40 initiative influences climate action at the city level. Results show that there is no statistically significant relationship between C40 membership and CO2 emissions, indicating that cities in the C40 initiative may not have reduced CO2 emissions more than other OECD cities, after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, weather, country characteristics, city fixed effects, time fixed effects, and city-specific annual time trends. Furthermore, the complementary qualitative analysis showed the C40 network's direct intervention is limited to increasing or maintaining the ambition of cities; the network was found to have limited influence on city-level policy planning and implementation. There is a need to further study and address local policy implementation for realizing net-zero in relation to TMN membership.
Mapping the hydrogen transition in the Netherlands
A sociotechnical multi-system event sequence analysis
Hydrogen is considered a promising energy carrier that can potentially contribute to low-carbon energy systems and achieving climate goals. Its introduction, however, is complex, involving multiple emerging niches and developments across various sociotechnical systems. Despite its significance, the multi-system nature of hydrogen has received limited attention in sustainability transition scholarship. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by examining the emerging hydrogen transition in the Netherlands from a multi-system sociotechnical perspective. To achieve this, we adopted a framework that considers multiple niches and sociotechnical systems in parallel, using Event Sequence Analysis (ESA). The analysis provides a systematic reconstruction of (niche-)processes as networks of events for analysing hydrogen niche formation from 2001 to 2020 across four sociotechnical systems: industry, electricity, transport, and the built environment. The results reveal that, despite positive discourse and ambitious plans, investments and implementation remained limited. We provide possible explanations for this progress through a multi-system lens.
...
Hydrogen is considered a promising energy carrier that can potentially contribute to low-carbon energy systems and achieving climate goals. Its introduction, however, is complex, involving multiple emerging niches and developments across various sociotechnical systems. Despite its significance, the multi-system nature of hydrogen has received limited attention in sustainability transition scholarship. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by examining the emerging hydrogen transition in the Netherlands from a multi-system sociotechnical perspective. To achieve this, we adopted a framework that considers multiple niches and sociotechnical systems in parallel, using Event Sequence Analysis (ESA). The analysis provides a systematic reconstruction of (niche-)processes as networks of events for analysing hydrogen niche formation from 2001 to 2020 across four sociotechnical systems: industry, electricity, transport, and the built environment. The results reveal that, despite positive discourse and ambitious plans, investments and implementation remained limited. We provide possible explanations for this progress through a multi-system lens.
How issue salience and political leadership facilitate policy integration
The adoption of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in the European Union
The transition to a decarbonized energy system requires the adoption of climate policy in sectors such as buildings, industry, and transport. This climate policy integration is subject to political processes, but there is a lack of empirical investigations on how these political processes take place and which drivers shape integrative policy change. We address these gaps by conducting an empirical analysis of the 2024 recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) of the European Union (EU), a part of the “Fit for 55” program aimed at integrating climate change mitigation into building policy. Specifically, we ask (1) how did levels of climate policy integration evolve in the policy process and (2) what were the drivers of changes in these levels? Based on a qualitative case study research design, we analyzed six interview transcripts, thirteen policy documents, and 59 newspaper articles. We find that the EPBD represents a significant increase in integration of climate policy with regards to policy objectives and policy instruments, but only a minor increase of integration in governance capacities. Levels of integration differed between policy venues and changed during the policy process, because of issue salience and political leadership. We suggest further research to investigate the role of interlinkages of these drivers for integration processes and derive as a policy implication that policy integration levels need integrative capacities at all stages of the policy process.
...
The transition to a decarbonized energy system requires the adoption of climate policy in sectors such as buildings, industry, and transport. This climate policy integration is subject to political processes, but there is a lack of empirical investigations on how these political processes take place and which drivers shape integrative policy change. We address these gaps by conducting an empirical analysis of the 2024 recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) of the European Union (EU), a part of the “Fit for 55” program aimed at integrating climate change mitigation into building policy. Specifically, we ask (1) how did levels of climate policy integration evolve in the policy process and (2) what were the drivers of changes in these levels? Based on a qualitative case study research design, we analyzed six interview transcripts, thirteen policy documents, and 59 newspaper articles. We find that the EPBD represents a significant increase in integration of climate policy with regards to policy objectives and policy instruments, but only a minor increase of integration in governance capacities. Levels of integration differed between policy venues and changed during the policy process, because of issue salience and political leadership. We suggest further research to investigate the role of interlinkages of these drivers for integration processes and derive as a policy implication that policy integration levels need integrative capacities at all stages of the policy process.
Analysing the impact of the different pricing policies on PV-battery systems
A Dutch case study of a residential microgrid
This study investigates the techno-economic impacts of various pricing policies on a photovoltaic (PV) system combined with battery energy storage (BES) as a single integrated system within a Dutch residential building. With the increasing adoption of PV systems, managing reverse power flow and grid stability becomes crucial. The study evaluates different scenarios, including net metering, feed-in tariffs (FiT) with time-of-use (TOU), RTP pricing, and subsidised BES. Using a multi-objective genetic algorithm, the optimal size and charging/discharging patterns of the PV-BES system were determined. The optimisation simultaneously minimises the Net Present Cost (NPC) and maximises the Self-Consumption Rate (SCR), to determine the PV-BES size that achieves an optimal balance between economic and technical performance. Results indicate that RTP pricing significantly enhances SCR. While the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and payback periods (PBP) are initially higher in the RTP pricing scenario, subsidising BES can mitigate these disadvantages. Additionally, incorporating price limit control variables into the energy management system (EMS) optimises the charging/discharging cycles, extending BES lifetimes and potentially increasing future revenues. These findings provide insights for policymakers to balance economic benefits and grid technical requirements through effective PV-BES integration.
...
This study investigates the techno-economic impacts of various pricing policies on a photovoltaic (PV) system combined with battery energy storage (BES) as a single integrated system within a Dutch residential building. With the increasing adoption of PV systems, managing reverse power flow and grid stability becomes crucial. The study evaluates different scenarios, including net metering, feed-in tariffs (FiT) with time-of-use (TOU), RTP pricing, and subsidised BES. Using a multi-objective genetic algorithm, the optimal size and charging/discharging patterns of the PV-BES system were determined. The optimisation simultaneously minimises the Net Present Cost (NPC) and maximises the Self-Consumption Rate (SCR), to determine the PV-BES size that achieves an optimal balance between economic and technical performance. Results indicate that RTP pricing significantly enhances SCR. While the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and payback periods (PBP) are initially higher in the RTP pricing scenario, subsidising BES can mitigate these disadvantages. Additionally, incorporating price limit control variables into the energy management system (EMS) optimises the charging/discharging cycles, extending BES lifetimes and potentially increasing future revenues. These findings provide insights for policymakers to balance economic benefits and grid technical requirements through effective PV-BES integration.
Onshore wind energy projects are traditionally developed by commercial project developers. However, the development of these projects is increasingly encountering problems due to poor social acceptance and legal objections. In addition to commercial project developers, renewable energy cooperatives (REScoops) also develop onshore wind energy projects. These non-commercial entities are driven by local, ecological and egalitarian values and often strive for local ownership. This influences the rules-in-use they apply when planning and developing projects. In this paper, fourteen cases of onshore wind energy project development in the Netherlands are analysed using Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework. The objectives are: (1) to investigate how the rules-in-use differ between fourteen selected onshore REScoop wind energy projects and onshore commercial wind energy projects in the Netherlands, (2) to investigate how the project duration and the number of submitted views and appeals differ between these two types of wind energy projects, and (3) to determine to what extent the observed differences in rules-in-use can explain the differences in project duration and the number of views and appeals submitted. The research design involves a stepwise approach, including qualitative within-case analysis, followed by quantitative cross-case statistical analysis. The results show that projects developed by REScoops differ on six out of seven rules, especially pay-off, position, and aggregation rules. For projects with a higher percentage of REScoop ownership, the total duration of project planning and development is shorter, there are fewer submitted views during the permit application process and fewer appeals to the Council of State.
...
Onshore wind energy projects are traditionally developed by commercial project developers. However, the development of these projects is increasingly encountering problems due to poor social acceptance and legal objections. In addition to commercial project developers, renewable energy cooperatives (REScoops) also develop onshore wind energy projects. These non-commercial entities are driven by local, ecological and egalitarian values and often strive for local ownership. This influences the rules-in-use they apply when planning and developing projects. In this paper, fourteen cases of onshore wind energy project development in the Netherlands are analysed using Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework. The objectives are: (1) to investigate how the rules-in-use differ between fourteen selected onshore REScoop wind energy projects and onshore commercial wind energy projects in the Netherlands, (2) to investigate how the project duration and the number of submitted views and appeals differ between these two types of wind energy projects, and (3) to determine to what extent the observed differences in rules-in-use can explain the differences in project duration and the number of views and appeals submitted. The research design involves a stepwise approach, including qualitative within-case analysis, followed by quantitative cross-case statistical analysis. The results show that projects developed by REScoops differ on six out of seven rules, especially pay-off, position, and aggregation rules. For projects with a higher percentage of REScoop ownership, the total duration of project planning and development is shorter, there are fewer submitted views during the permit application process and fewer appeals to the Council of State.
A just energy transition requires not only the achievement of low-carbon goals but also the creation of fairer energy systems where special attention is given to identifying vulnerable groups and addressing the inequalities they experience. Governing energy transitions at the regional level may help formulate and implement tailored policies addressing vulnerabilities at the local level. However, there is limited understanding of the vulnerabilities that citizen groups experience in energy regions. We formulated three objectives to address this gap: I) identifying energy vulnerabilities in a regional transition context; II) understanding what citizen groups experience them and why; and III) identifying barriers that prevent policies from engaging with these groups. We applied a case-study research design to the Rotterdam-The Hague energy region in the Netherlands. Data collection involved semi-structured expert and stakeholder interviews and a review of newspaper articles and policy reports. We processed data with a thematic analysis drawing from energy justice literature and intersectionality theory. Three main energy vulnerabilities were identified: unaffordability of energy consumption, the lack of opportunity to own self-generation technology, and little to no inclusion in decision-making processes. The findings reveal five groups prone to vulnerability and the conditions that put them in a vulnerable situation, such as living in an energy-inefficient house. We conclude that regional energy transition policies should consider intersections of society while offering more support to municipalities to enable them to engage citizen groups at higher risk of energy vulnerability.
...
A just energy transition requires not only the achievement of low-carbon goals but also the creation of fairer energy systems where special attention is given to identifying vulnerable groups and addressing the inequalities they experience. Governing energy transitions at the regional level may help formulate and implement tailored policies addressing vulnerabilities at the local level. However, there is limited understanding of the vulnerabilities that citizen groups experience in energy regions. We formulated three objectives to address this gap: I) identifying energy vulnerabilities in a regional transition context; II) understanding what citizen groups experience them and why; and III) identifying barriers that prevent policies from engaging with these groups. We applied a case-study research design to the Rotterdam-The Hague energy region in the Netherlands. Data collection involved semi-structured expert and stakeholder interviews and a review of newspaper articles and policy reports. We processed data with a thematic analysis drawing from energy justice literature and intersectionality theory. Three main energy vulnerabilities were identified: unaffordability of energy consumption, the lack of opportunity to own self-generation technology, and little to no inclusion in decision-making processes. The findings reveal five groups prone to vulnerability and the conditions that put them in a vulnerable situation, such as living in an energy-inefficient house. We conclude that regional energy transition policies should consider intersections of society while offering more support to municipalities to enable them to engage citizen groups at higher risk of energy vulnerability.
Journal article
(2024)
-
Amanda Martinez-Reyes, Jenny Lieu, Nihit Goyal, Diana Mangalagiu, Thomas Hoppe
Understanding what conditions promote or hinder energy affordability in energy transitions is crucial for coal and carbon-intensive regions (CCIRs) dealing with the trade-off between phasing out fossil fuels and deepening social inequalities. While previous studies have included household and national-level conditions, this paper addresses the research gap covering regional-level conditions by drawing from regional energy governance, energy justice, and sociotechnical transition frameworks. A mixed-method approach consisting of a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and case-study analysis is applied to 14 CCIRs in Europe, Asia, and North America. Results show that energy affordability in CCIRs is influenced by combinations of regional and (inter)national conditions. Whereas the existing literature and transition policies do not differentiate between the CCI sector's transition type, this paper highlights that conditions underlying energy (un)affordability differ when the CCI sector is phased out or has the option to transition. Based on the findings, this study calls for a multi-level governance approach to alleviating and preventing energy unaffordability and recommends that policy mixes like the EU Just Transition Fund consider the different types of CCIR transitions.
...
Understanding what conditions promote or hinder energy affordability in energy transitions is crucial for coal and carbon-intensive regions (CCIRs) dealing with the trade-off between phasing out fossil fuels and deepening social inequalities. While previous studies have included household and national-level conditions, this paper addresses the research gap covering regional-level conditions by drawing from regional energy governance, energy justice, and sociotechnical transition frameworks. A mixed-method approach consisting of a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and case-study analysis is applied to 14 CCIRs in Europe, Asia, and North America. Results show that energy affordability in CCIRs is influenced by combinations of regional and (inter)national conditions. Whereas the existing literature and transition policies do not differentiate between the CCI sector's transition type, this paper highlights that conditions underlying energy (un)affordability differ when the CCI sector is phased out or has the option to transition. Based on the findings, this study calls for a multi-level governance approach to alleviating and preventing energy unaffordability and recommends that policy mixes like the EU Just Transition Fund consider the different types of CCIR transitions.
Guest Editorial
Special Issue on “Sustainable urban energy systems – Governance and citizen involvement”
Cities are responsible for over 75% of the total amount of global greenhouse gas emissions. They are also home to the majority of the Earth's population. Ambitious climate mitigation goals can only be realized by transforming fossil based urban energy systems into sustainable, low-carbon ones. This is a multidisciplinary challenge that goes way beyond the technological dimension. In the Special Issue to which this Guest Editorial contributes, a multi-disciplinary perspective is used, exploring governance, institutional, ethical and other aspects, pertaining to citizen involvement in sustainable urban energy systems. The main research questions are, “How can we address key challenges to the analysis and design of sustainable urban energy systems, as regards their governance and institutions, values, social acceptance, and citizen involvement?”, and “How can this contribute to shaping a multi-disciplinary academic research agenda?” Based on the main findings from the ten contributions to the Special Issue key challenges to sustainable urban energy system design, planning, and implementation are presented, including suggestions for future research.
...
Cities are responsible for over 75% of the total amount of global greenhouse gas emissions. They are also home to the majority of the Earth's population. Ambitious climate mitigation goals can only be realized by transforming fossil based urban energy systems into sustainable, low-carbon ones. This is a multidisciplinary challenge that goes way beyond the technological dimension. In the Special Issue to which this Guest Editorial contributes, a multi-disciplinary perspective is used, exploring governance, institutional, ethical and other aspects, pertaining to citizen involvement in sustainable urban energy systems. The main research questions are, “How can we address key challenges to the analysis and design of sustainable urban energy systems, as regards their governance and institutions, values, social acceptance, and citizen involvement?”, and “How can this contribute to shaping a multi-disciplinary academic research agenda?” Based on the main findings from the ten contributions to the Special Issue key challenges to sustainable urban energy system design, planning, and implementation are presented, including suggestions for future research.
The role of City Climate Networks in Promoting Citizen Participation in Municipalities
A Critical Multi-Case Analysis
Background
At the COP21, cities were recognised as key actors in combatting climate change. In supporting cities, climate city networks such as transnational climate networks (TCNs) and national climate networks (NCNs) have emerged to enable cities in building capacities and formulating climate policy whilst also encouraging citizen engagement and participation in public decision-making. This paper addresses the question whether and how TCN or NCN membership enables municipalities to implement citizen participation in public decision-making. Six propositions are presented addressing: presumed influence of TCN membership on citizen participation, organization of citizen participation, initiator capacity, goal setting, involvement of stakeholders, participatory methods used, and planning processes. A multi-case study research design is used to verify these propositions, comprising of four medium-sized cities in the Netherlands and three in Belgium.
Results
Results of the analysis of four cities in The Netherlands show that municipalities having membership to climate city networks only to a low extent empower citizen participation via local climate agendas. Citizen participation emerges rather bottom-up via local initiatives or capacity building via EU framework programs—outside TCNs or NCNs—that better suit financial needs and provide more immediate benefits to municipalities. None of the six propositions were confirmed. A more positive image resulted from the Belgian cases that moderately confirmed four out of six propositions (i.e., organizing citizen participation, goal setting, selection of methods, and planning), and featured indirect empowerment via externally funded implementation projects following firm integration of participation in local climate policy through TCN influence.
Conclusions
In terms of citizen participation selected municipalities in the Netherlands having TCN and/or NCN membership only to a small extent differ from those not having membership. This is partly due to poor implementation of TCNs and NCNs—with Covenant of Mayors and ‘Klimaatverbond’ lacking support structure and capacity—having lost importance during the past years. However, there is reason to believe that context makes a difference as revealed by the cases from Belgium, which revealed more positive results. ...
At the COP21, cities were recognised as key actors in combatting climate change. In supporting cities, climate city networks such as transnational climate networks (TCNs) and national climate networks (NCNs) have emerged to enable cities in building capacities and formulating climate policy whilst also encouraging citizen engagement and participation in public decision-making. This paper addresses the question whether and how TCN or NCN membership enables municipalities to implement citizen participation in public decision-making. Six propositions are presented addressing: presumed influence of TCN membership on citizen participation, organization of citizen participation, initiator capacity, goal setting, involvement of stakeholders, participatory methods used, and planning processes. A multi-case study research design is used to verify these propositions, comprising of four medium-sized cities in the Netherlands and three in Belgium.
Results
Results of the analysis of four cities in The Netherlands show that municipalities having membership to climate city networks only to a low extent empower citizen participation via local climate agendas. Citizen participation emerges rather bottom-up via local initiatives or capacity building via EU framework programs—outside TCNs or NCNs—that better suit financial needs and provide more immediate benefits to municipalities. None of the six propositions were confirmed. A more positive image resulted from the Belgian cases that moderately confirmed four out of six propositions (i.e., organizing citizen participation, goal setting, selection of methods, and planning), and featured indirect empowerment via externally funded implementation projects following firm integration of participation in local climate policy through TCN influence.
Conclusions
In terms of citizen participation selected municipalities in the Netherlands having TCN and/or NCN membership only to a small extent differ from those not having membership. This is partly due to poor implementation of TCNs and NCNs—with Covenant of Mayors and ‘Klimaatverbond’ lacking support structure and capacity—having lost importance during the past years. However, there is reason to believe that context makes a difference as revealed by the cases from Belgium, which revealed more positive results. ...
Background
At the COP21, cities were recognised as key actors in combatting climate change. In supporting cities, climate city networks such as transnational climate networks (TCNs) and national climate networks (NCNs) have emerged to enable cities in building capacities and formulating climate policy whilst also encouraging citizen engagement and participation in public decision-making. This paper addresses the question whether and how TCN or NCN membership enables municipalities to implement citizen participation in public decision-making. Six propositions are presented addressing: presumed influence of TCN membership on citizen participation, organization of citizen participation, initiator capacity, goal setting, involvement of stakeholders, participatory methods used, and planning processes. A multi-case study research design is used to verify these propositions, comprising of four medium-sized cities in the Netherlands and three in Belgium.
Results
Results of the analysis of four cities in The Netherlands show that municipalities having membership to climate city networks only to a low extent empower citizen participation via local climate agendas. Citizen participation emerges rather bottom-up via local initiatives or capacity building via EU framework programs—outside TCNs or NCNs—that better suit financial needs and provide more immediate benefits to municipalities. None of the six propositions were confirmed. A more positive image resulted from the Belgian cases that moderately confirmed four out of six propositions (i.e., organizing citizen participation, goal setting, selection of methods, and planning), and featured indirect empowerment via externally funded implementation projects following firm integration of participation in local climate policy through TCN influence.
Conclusions
In terms of citizen participation selected municipalities in the Netherlands having TCN and/or NCN membership only to a small extent differ from those not having membership. This is partly due to poor implementation of TCNs and NCNs—with Covenant of Mayors and ‘Klimaatverbond’ lacking support structure and capacity—having lost importance during the past years. However, there is reason to believe that context makes a difference as revealed by the cases from Belgium, which revealed more positive results.
At the COP21, cities were recognised as key actors in combatting climate change. In supporting cities, climate city networks such as transnational climate networks (TCNs) and national climate networks (NCNs) have emerged to enable cities in building capacities and formulating climate policy whilst also encouraging citizen engagement and participation in public decision-making. This paper addresses the question whether and how TCN or NCN membership enables municipalities to implement citizen participation in public decision-making. Six propositions are presented addressing: presumed influence of TCN membership on citizen participation, organization of citizen participation, initiator capacity, goal setting, involvement of stakeholders, participatory methods used, and planning processes. A multi-case study research design is used to verify these propositions, comprising of four medium-sized cities in the Netherlands and three in Belgium.
Results
Results of the analysis of four cities in The Netherlands show that municipalities having membership to climate city networks only to a low extent empower citizen participation via local climate agendas. Citizen participation emerges rather bottom-up via local initiatives or capacity building via EU framework programs—outside TCNs or NCNs—that better suit financial needs and provide more immediate benefits to municipalities. None of the six propositions were confirmed. A more positive image resulted from the Belgian cases that moderately confirmed four out of six propositions (i.e., organizing citizen participation, goal setting, selection of methods, and planning), and featured indirect empowerment via externally funded implementation projects following firm integration of participation in local climate policy through TCN influence.
Conclusions
In terms of citizen participation selected municipalities in the Netherlands having TCN and/or NCN membership only to a small extent differ from those not having membership. This is partly due to poor implementation of TCNs and NCNs—with Covenant of Mayors and ‘Klimaatverbond’ lacking support structure and capacity—having lost importance during the past years. However, there is reason to believe that context makes a difference as revealed by the cases from Belgium, which revealed more positive results.
WORKPACKAGE 6 Governance of collective energy systems
6.2 Innovation and Governance arrangements of AE systems; A multi-case analysis of WaterWarmth pilots
The aim of this Work Package 6 (WP6) report is to describe and analyze insights from Interreg North Sea WaterWarmth demonstration pilots. Specifically, WP6 examines the pilots' innovation and governance arrangements that help implementation and scaling of aqua thermal energy (AE) systems in real-world contexts. The work is therefore primarily based on lessons learned through a mixed methods approach with the Interreg North Sea WaterWarmth project pilots. To help address the shortage of knowledge on innovation of AE systems, this report builds on frameworks previously used in WP6 work (see Deliverable 6.1; Hoppe et al., 2024) where a mapping of theoretical frameworks and a typology to analyze governance of AE and other heating systems was performed. Particularly, we are applying three of the approaches and theoretical frameworks from Deliverable 6.1 from various scholarly backgrounds. For example, the multi-level perspective (MLP) and Strategic Niche Management (SNM) have a background in Science-and Technology Systems studies, Transition Studies and Evolutionary Economics, while Governance Arrangements (GA) has its roots in Governance and Policy Studies. As the focus of this report is on bottom-up niche level developments, we use concepts from SNM involving voicing and shaping of expectations, network formation, and learning. The pilots are implemented under societal conditions and hence also influenced by the existing heating regimes. Therefore, we address challenges and tensions, which we assume indicates incumbent regime influence that often hinders AE innovation development applying the MLP. Finally, we are interested in what role governance, and more specifically, regulation plays in pilots. This refers to organization authority and legitimacy, the role of government, and policy instruments like regulations, permit systems, and/ or subsidies.
...
The aim of this Work Package 6 (WP6) report is to describe and analyze insights from Interreg North Sea WaterWarmth demonstration pilots. Specifically, WP6 examines the pilots' innovation and governance arrangements that help implementation and scaling of aqua thermal energy (AE) systems in real-world contexts. The work is therefore primarily based on lessons learned through a mixed methods approach with the Interreg North Sea WaterWarmth project pilots. To help address the shortage of knowledge on innovation of AE systems, this report builds on frameworks previously used in WP6 work (see Deliverable 6.1; Hoppe et al., 2024) where a mapping of theoretical frameworks and a typology to analyze governance of AE and other heating systems was performed. Particularly, we are applying three of the approaches and theoretical frameworks from Deliverable 6.1 from various scholarly backgrounds. For example, the multi-level perspective (MLP) and Strategic Niche Management (SNM) have a background in Science-and Technology Systems studies, Transition Studies and Evolutionary Economics, while Governance Arrangements (GA) has its roots in Governance and Policy Studies. As the focus of this report is on bottom-up niche level developments, we use concepts from SNM involving voicing and shaping of expectations, network formation, and learning. The pilots are implemented under societal conditions and hence also influenced by the existing heating regimes. Therefore, we address challenges and tensions, which we assume indicates incumbent regime influence that often hinders AE innovation development applying the MLP. Finally, we are interested in what role governance, and more specifically, regulation plays in pilots. This refers to organization authority and legitimacy, the role of government, and policy instruments like regulations, permit systems, and/ or subsidies.
WP 6 Governance of collective energy systems
#1 Framework and typology to analyse governance of current AE and other relevant heating systems
The aim of this WaterWarmth project Work Package 6.1 report is to present a number of relevant frameworks available to analyse and/or assess the governance of current heating systems and future energy system innovation, in particular with a focus on aquathermal energy (AE) systems. At the basis of the report was a broad survey of the academic and other literature by project researchers on ways to conceptualise the greater use of AE energy systems in the European Union. To keep the report succinct, and based on discussions by WaterWarmth project researchers, we have decided to present a combination of theoretical approaches to frame and understand AE system transitions instead of the broad collection of frameworks and theories that exist today. These are the Multi-Level Perspective, Strategic Niche Management, Contextual Interaction Theory, the Governance of Change and Community Energy Systems. The report contributes to the project by providing a strategic way to understand renewable energy transition processes, and more specifically, pathways for how AE systems can play a more significant role in a renewable energy system transition in the North Sea Region and beyond. The result is a heuristic that allows practitioners to discover how AE system developments in particular places can be viewed in a broader energy system transition context, the measures that may be needed to guide the transition process, and to gain a deeper understanding about the motivations, cognitions and resources of the actors involved in the energy transition process.
To demonstrate the proposed frameworks, we exemplify using two case studies: AE system development at the household in Sweden, and AE transitions in the Fryslân region, in the Netherlands. For the Swedish case we use the Multi-level Perspective (MLP) framework to provide the background of the niche, landscape level and the socio-technical regime which illustrate the influence of policies and regulations, as well as technologies and markets. For the Netherlands case, we place a stronger emphasis on Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) framework to analyse how the different actors and their characteristics such as motivations, cognitions and resources influence the interaction process in the planning and implementation of AE systems projects. Using the CIT, we are also able to assess how the specific, structural and wider contexts influence the implementation process as well as how the actors interact with each other. Each case provides a unique structuring, both enablers and hindrances, of the institutional and governance dynamics for AE system innovations in their respective countries. Extending from the exemplary studies, we lastly discuss each of the cases as well as broader insights gained when using the approach, and what it can mean for broader AE system transitions in the European Union.
This report is intended for multiple audiences including but not limited to practitioners aiming to develop AE systems, academics interested in assessing governance processes around AE system development, policy-makers interested in policies and decision-making to promote AE system development.
...
To demonstrate the proposed frameworks, we exemplify using two case studies: AE system development at the household in Sweden, and AE transitions in the Fryslân region, in the Netherlands. For the Swedish case we use the Multi-level Perspective (MLP) framework to provide the background of the niche, landscape level and the socio-technical regime which illustrate the influence of policies and regulations, as well as technologies and markets. For the Netherlands case, we place a stronger emphasis on Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) framework to analyse how the different actors and their characteristics such as motivations, cognitions and resources influence the interaction process in the planning and implementation of AE systems projects. Using the CIT, we are also able to assess how the specific, structural and wider contexts influence the implementation process as well as how the actors interact with each other. Each case provides a unique structuring, both enablers and hindrances, of the institutional and governance dynamics for AE system innovations in their respective countries. Extending from the exemplary studies, we lastly discuss each of the cases as well as broader insights gained when using the approach, and what it can mean for broader AE system transitions in the European Union.
This report is intended for multiple audiences including but not limited to practitioners aiming to develop AE systems, academics interested in assessing governance processes around AE system development, policy-makers interested in policies and decision-making to promote AE system development.
...
The aim of this WaterWarmth project Work Package 6.1 report is to present a number of relevant frameworks available to analyse and/or assess the governance of current heating systems and future energy system innovation, in particular with a focus on aquathermal energy (AE) systems. At the basis of the report was a broad survey of the academic and other literature by project researchers on ways to conceptualise the greater use of AE energy systems in the European Union. To keep the report succinct, and based on discussions by WaterWarmth project researchers, we have decided to present a combination of theoretical approaches to frame and understand AE system transitions instead of the broad collection of frameworks and theories that exist today. These are the Multi-Level Perspective, Strategic Niche Management, Contextual Interaction Theory, the Governance of Change and Community Energy Systems. The report contributes to the project by providing a strategic way to understand renewable energy transition processes, and more specifically, pathways for how AE systems can play a more significant role in a renewable energy system transition in the North Sea Region and beyond. The result is a heuristic that allows practitioners to discover how AE system developments in particular places can be viewed in a broader energy system transition context, the measures that may be needed to guide the transition process, and to gain a deeper understanding about the motivations, cognitions and resources of the actors involved in the energy transition process.
To demonstrate the proposed frameworks, we exemplify using two case studies: AE system development at the household in Sweden, and AE transitions in the Fryslân region, in the Netherlands. For the Swedish case we use the Multi-level Perspective (MLP) framework to provide the background of the niche, landscape level and the socio-technical regime which illustrate the influence of policies and regulations, as well as technologies and markets. For the Netherlands case, we place a stronger emphasis on Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) framework to analyse how the different actors and their characteristics such as motivations, cognitions and resources influence the interaction process in the planning and implementation of AE systems projects. Using the CIT, we are also able to assess how the specific, structural and wider contexts influence the implementation process as well as how the actors interact with each other. Each case provides a unique structuring, both enablers and hindrances, of the institutional and governance dynamics for AE system innovations in their respective countries. Extending from the exemplary studies, we lastly discuss each of the cases as well as broader insights gained when using the approach, and what it can mean for broader AE system transitions in the European Union.
This report is intended for multiple audiences including but not limited to practitioners aiming to develop AE systems, academics interested in assessing governance processes around AE system development, policy-makers interested in policies and decision-making to promote AE system development.
To demonstrate the proposed frameworks, we exemplify using two case studies: AE system development at the household in Sweden, and AE transitions in the Fryslân region, in the Netherlands. For the Swedish case we use the Multi-level Perspective (MLP) framework to provide the background of the niche, landscape level and the socio-technical regime which illustrate the influence of policies and regulations, as well as technologies and markets. For the Netherlands case, we place a stronger emphasis on Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) framework to analyse how the different actors and their characteristics such as motivations, cognitions and resources influence the interaction process in the planning and implementation of AE systems projects. Using the CIT, we are also able to assess how the specific, structural and wider contexts influence the implementation process as well as how the actors interact with each other. Each case provides a unique structuring, both enablers and hindrances, of the institutional and governance dynamics for AE system innovations in their respective countries. Extending from the exemplary studies, we lastly discuss each of the cases as well as broader insights gained when using the approach, and what it can mean for broader AE system transitions in the European Union.
This report is intended for multiple audiences including but not limited to practitioners aiming to develop AE systems, academics interested in assessing governance processes around AE system development, policy-makers interested in policies and decision-making to promote AE system development.
Energy Communities Coming of Age
Developing a Tool to Monitor Maturity and Scaling
This report presents Deliverables 2.1 and 2.2 of the Horizon 2020 SCCALE 203050 project (Sustainable Collective Citizen Action for a Local Europe). The aim of this project is to scale the growth of energy communities - or “Renewable Energy Communities'' according to the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) - across Europe in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy production, district heating in households and non-residential buildings. This report is the first deliverable of Work package 2 (Research and Academic Validation) which seeks to gain a better understanding of how collective citizen actions in sustainable energy develop, grow, mature - in other words, how they come of age. This will be done by analysing, monitoring and evaluating experiences of collective citizen action and community engagement in the domains of sustainable energy (i.e. renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation).
This report first presents the results of a literature review (i.e. Deliverable 2.1) – using both academic and grey literature - on energy communities and collective citizen actions contributing to sustainable energy transitions. However, the report goes beyond a literature study. Instead, it was developed as a collaborative effort between the research team at Delft University of Technology and community energy experts and practitioners using multiple interactive and feedback meetings.
The central aim of this report is to generate insights into the actions and activities energy communities and citizen collectives undertake to develop and mature their organisations with the objective to scale, achieve transformative change, and make both a social and environmental impact. The report maps state of the art insights into collective citizen actions at the neighbourhood level, targeting energy efficiency and renewable energy technology measures alike. Moreover, it addresses relevant theory and good practice on actions and activities that energy communities can pursue, partly based on theory and partly based on case studies. In addition, the report also takes into account issues like energy poverty, energy democracy, energy justice, social inclusiveness, citizen engagement, multi-stakeholder management in neighbourhoods, the use of digital tools, and data protection (to cope with increasing cybersecurity issues).
In addition, the report presents the development and design of a monitoring tool (Deliverable 2.2). The Development Progress Tool uses knowledge from the literature study. This is firstly used to elaborate the energy community maturity scale and framework as developed under the Horizon 2020 COMPILE project (Seebauer et al., 2022). The elaborated maturity index forms the conceptual basis and framework to develop a monitoring tool. The latter will be implemented, tested and validated among the five demonstration pilots of SCCALE 203050 in 2022-2023.
...
This report presents Deliverables 2.1 and 2.2 of the Horizon 2020 SCCALE 203050 project (Sustainable Collective Citizen Action for a Local Europe). The aim of this project is to scale the growth of energy communities - or “Renewable Energy Communities'' according to the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) - across Europe in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy production, district heating in households and non-residential buildings. This report is the first deliverable of Work package 2 (Research and Academic Validation) which seeks to gain a better understanding of how collective citizen actions in sustainable energy develop, grow, mature - in other words, how they come of age. This will be done by analysing, monitoring and evaluating experiences of collective citizen action and community engagement in the domains of sustainable energy (i.e. renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation).
This report first presents the results of a literature review (i.e. Deliverable 2.1) – using both academic and grey literature - on energy communities and collective citizen actions contributing to sustainable energy transitions. However, the report goes beyond a literature study. Instead, it was developed as a collaborative effort between the research team at Delft University of Technology and community energy experts and practitioners using multiple interactive and feedback meetings.
The central aim of this report is to generate insights into the actions and activities energy communities and citizen collectives undertake to develop and mature their organisations with the objective to scale, achieve transformative change, and make both a social and environmental impact. The report maps state of the art insights into collective citizen actions at the neighbourhood level, targeting energy efficiency and renewable energy technology measures alike. Moreover, it addresses relevant theory and good practice on actions and activities that energy communities can pursue, partly based on theory and partly based on case studies. In addition, the report also takes into account issues like energy poverty, energy democracy, energy justice, social inclusiveness, citizen engagement, multi-stakeholder management in neighbourhoods, the use of digital tools, and data protection (to cope with increasing cybersecurity issues).
In addition, the report presents the development and design of a monitoring tool (Deliverable 2.2). The Development Progress Tool uses knowledge from the literature study. This is firstly used to elaborate the energy community maturity scale and framework as developed under the Horizon 2020 COMPILE project (Seebauer et al., 2022). The elaborated maturity index forms the conceptual basis and framework to develop a monitoring tool. The latter will be implemented, tested and validated among the five demonstration pilots of SCCALE 203050 in 2022-2023.
SHIFFT WP2 Monitoring & Evaluation of the Co-creation Pilots
WP2 (Work Package-2) Monitoring and Evaluation Report
Sustainable Heating Implementation of Fossil-Free Technologies (SHIFFT) is an Interreg 2 Seas-funded project focused on the adoption of low-carbon heating in existing residential and community buildings. The specific objective of SHIFFT is to increase the adoption of low-carbon technologies and applications in sectors that have the potential for a high reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. SHIFFT envisages achieving this by accelerating the market adoption of sustainable heating solutions for replacing fossil technologies used for domestic heating. One way to do this is by having six co-creation pilots located in four countries in the 2 Seas region. With the co-creation pilots SHIFFT aims to achieve a reduction of 3,422 tons CO2 emission/year resulted from the installation of sustainable heating systems and behavioural change in heating practices by 4,295 households through co-creation and related measures. In SHIFFT, co-creation refers to a participatory process where citizens, public authorities, and other (local) stakeholders provide input, co-define problems, co-design a solution, a plan or policy to achieve a beneficial outcome for all parties participating, and do this in the domain of sustainable heating.
The aim of this report is to identify challenges, barriers, lessons and tips for replication and transfer of successful co-creation to other cities. A three-step approach was used with each co-creation pilot first conducting a stakeholder and situational analysis (February 2020). Second, co-creation action plans were developed (June 2020). These were implemented eventually implemented (July 2020 – December 2022). The process was supported by a co-creation expert team consisting of academic partners. The six co-creation pilots are: Bruges, Mechelen (Belgium), Middelburg (Netherlands), Fourmies, Hauts-de-France (France), and Norwich (United Kingdom).
Implementation of the action plans was greatly hindered in the first nineteen months of the project due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to lockdowns and other restrictive measures and which made it impossible to implement many real-life (in person) co-creative actions. In the face of the greater difficulty pilot hosts had to resort to less effective online modes of co-creation. After the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were lifted in the Spring of 2022 implementation of (adapted) action plans could be begun in real-life settings. After the Summer of 2022 implementation processes and the number of actions implemented intensified, more particularly in the pilots Bruges, Middelburg, Fourmies, and Mechelen.
In total, over 60 activities were deployed, resulting in about a hundred sub activities. Performance of the co-creation pilots was measured using five key performance indicators. In terms of CO2 emission reduction impact, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed first to achieve (and exceed) the goal of 3,422 tons CO2 emission/year. They then reached 224% of this target (i.e. 7,677 tons CO2 emission/year). Four out of six pilots met their individual CO2 emission reduction impact goals. In terms of households engaged, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed to exceed the household engagement goal of by engaging 6,769 households. Four out of six pilots achieved their individual household engagement goal. Other performance indicators on which co-creation pilots were monitored pertained to investments made, behavioural change and social networks formation. The pilots did quite well on the latter. Average investments in co-creation pilots were estimated to be about €196,538,293.
Challenges encountered in the co-creation pilots pertain to instrumental framing, letting go of traditional (i.e., top-down) ways of working, departmental interests, dependence on local stakeholders, personnel turnover, the COVID-19 pandemic, having to do with challenges and risks potential adopters perceive (like high upfront costs and negative ‘myths’ about sustainable heat options), and lack of (access to) information. 4
In different ways the co-creation pilots contributed to setting the right conditions under which (more advanced) co-creation in sustainable heat can be implemented in the future. This approach entails both co-creative action and being tailored in combination with sustainable heat policy, which is necessary to persuade local stakeholders when implementing co-created plans. The co-creative three-step approach developed in SHIFFT can be considered for use and for scaling in locations outside the initial SHIFFT co-creation pilots. Scaling pertains to replicating certain successful SHIFFT pilots in other cities or even regions, sharing the approach and tools developed (i.e., action plan approach, monitoring approach, CO2 impact tool, expert team support) with expert platforms on heat transitions, or expanding ongoing local practices and projects to adjacent streets or neighbourhoods. Most of the scaling modes mentioned are, in fact, already set in motion.
...
The aim of this report is to identify challenges, barriers, lessons and tips for replication and transfer of successful co-creation to other cities. A three-step approach was used with each co-creation pilot first conducting a stakeholder and situational analysis (February 2020). Second, co-creation action plans were developed (June 2020). These were implemented eventually implemented (July 2020 – December 2022). The process was supported by a co-creation expert team consisting of academic partners. The six co-creation pilots are: Bruges, Mechelen (Belgium), Middelburg (Netherlands), Fourmies, Hauts-de-France (France), and Norwich (United Kingdom).
Implementation of the action plans was greatly hindered in the first nineteen months of the project due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to lockdowns and other restrictive measures and which made it impossible to implement many real-life (in person) co-creative actions. In the face of the greater difficulty pilot hosts had to resort to less effective online modes of co-creation. After the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were lifted in the Spring of 2022 implementation of (adapted) action plans could be begun in real-life settings. After the Summer of 2022 implementation processes and the number of actions implemented intensified, more particularly in the pilots Bruges, Middelburg, Fourmies, and Mechelen.
In total, over 60 activities were deployed, resulting in about a hundred sub activities. Performance of the co-creation pilots was measured using five key performance indicators. In terms of CO2 emission reduction impact, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed first to achieve (and exceed) the goal of 3,422 tons CO2 emission/year. They then reached 224% of this target (i.e. 7,677 tons CO2 emission/year). Four out of six pilots met their individual CO2 emission reduction impact goals. In terms of households engaged, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed to exceed the household engagement goal of by engaging 6,769 households. Four out of six pilots achieved their individual household engagement goal. Other performance indicators on which co-creation pilots were monitored pertained to investments made, behavioural change and social networks formation. The pilots did quite well on the latter. Average investments in co-creation pilots were estimated to be about €196,538,293.
Challenges encountered in the co-creation pilots pertain to instrumental framing, letting go of traditional (i.e., top-down) ways of working, departmental interests, dependence on local stakeholders, personnel turnover, the COVID-19 pandemic, having to do with challenges and risks potential adopters perceive (like high upfront costs and negative ‘myths’ about sustainable heat options), and lack of (access to) information. 4
In different ways the co-creation pilots contributed to setting the right conditions under which (more advanced) co-creation in sustainable heat can be implemented in the future. This approach entails both co-creative action and being tailored in combination with sustainable heat policy, which is necessary to persuade local stakeholders when implementing co-created plans. The co-creative three-step approach developed in SHIFFT can be considered for use and for scaling in locations outside the initial SHIFFT co-creation pilots. Scaling pertains to replicating certain successful SHIFFT pilots in other cities or even regions, sharing the approach and tools developed (i.e., action plan approach, monitoring approach, CO2 impact tool, expert team support) with expert platforms on heat transitions, or expanding ongoing local practices and projects to adjacent streets or neighbourhoods. Most of the scaling modes mentioned are, in fact, already set in motion.
...
Sustainable Heating Implementation of Fossil-Free Technologies (SHIFFT) is an Interreg 2 Seas-funded project focused on the adoption of low-carbon heating in existing residential and community buildings. The specific objective of SHIFFT is to increase the adoption of low-carbon technologies and applications in sectors that have the potential for a high reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. SHIFFT envisages achieving this by accelerating the market adoption of sustainable heating solutions for replacing fossil technologies used for domestic heating. One way to do this is by having six co-creation pilots located in four countries in the 2 Seas region. With the co-creation pilots SHIFFT aims to achieve a reduction of 3,422 tons CO2 emission/year resulted from the installation of sustainable heating systems and behavioural change in heating practices by 4,295 households through co-creation and related measures. In SHIFFT, co-creation refers to a participatory process where citizens, public authorities, and other (local) stakeholders provide input, co-define problems, co-design a solution, a plan or policy to achieve a beneficial outcome for all parties participating, and do this in the domain of sustainable heating.
The aim of this report is to identify challenges, barriers, lessons and tips for replication and transfer of successful co-creation to other cities. A three-step approach was used with each co-creation pilot first conducting a stakeholder and situational analysis (February 2020). Second, co-creation action plans were developed (June 2020). These were implemented eventually implemented (July 2020 – December 2022). The process was supported by a co-creation expert team consisting of academic partners. The six co-creation pilots are: Bruges, Mechelen (Belgium), Middelburg (Netherlands), Fourmies, Hauts-de-France (France), and Norwich (United Kingdom).
Implementation of the action plans was greatly hindered in the first nineteen months of the project due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to lockdowns and other restrictive measures and which made it impossible to implement many real-life (in person) co-creative actions. In the face of the greater difficulty pilot hosts had to resort to less effective online modes of co-creation. After the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were lifted in the Spring of 2022 implementation of (adapted) action plans could be begun in real-life settings. After the Summer of 2022 implementation processes and the number of actions implemented intensified, more particularly in the pilots Bruges, Middelburg, Fourmies, and Mechelen.
In total, over 60 activities were deployed, resulting in about a hundred sub activities. Performance of the co-creation pilots was measured using five key performance indicators. In terms of CO2 emission reduction impact, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed first to achieve (and exceed) the goal of 3,422 tons CO2 emission/year. They then reached 224% of this target (i.e. 7,677 tons CO2 emission/year). Four out of six pilots met their individual CO2 emission reduction impact goals. In terms of households engaged, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed to exceed the household engagement goal of by engaging 6,769 households. Four out of six pilots achieved their individual household engagement goal. Other performance indicators on which co-creation pilots were monitored pertained to investments made, behavioural change and social networks formation. The pilots did quite well on the latter. Average investments in co-creation pilots were estimated to be about €196,538,293.
Challenges encountered in the co-creation pilots pertain to instrumental framing, letting go of traditional (i.e., top-down) ways of working, departmental interests, dependence on local stakeholders, personnel turnover, the COVID-19 pandemic, having to do with challenges and risks potential adopters perceive (like high upfront costs and negative ‘myths’ about sustainable heat options), and lack of (access to) information. 4
In different ways the co-creation pilots contributed to setting the right conditions under which (more advanced) co-creation in sustainable heat can be implemented in the future. This approach entails both co-creative action and being tailored in combination with sustainable heat policy, which is necessary to persuade local stakeholders when implementing co-created plans. The co-creative three-step approach developed in SHIFFT can be considered for use and for scaling in locations outside the initial SHIFFT co-creation pilots. Scaling pertains to replicating certain successful SHIFFT pilots in other cities or even regions, sharing the approach and tools developed (i.e., action plan approach, monitoring approach, CO2 impact tool, expert team support) with expert platforms on heat transitions, or expanding ongoing local practices and projects to adjacent streets or neighbourhoods. Most of the scaling modes mentioned are, in fact, already set in motion.
The aim of this report is to identify challenges, barriers, lessons and tips for replication and transfer of successful co-creation to other cities. A three-step approach was used with each co-creation pilot first conducting a stakeholder and situational analysis (February 2020). Second, co-creation action plans were developed (June 2020). These were implemented eventually implemented (July 2020 – December 2022). The process was supported by a co-creation expert team consisting of academic partners. The six co-creation pilots are: Bruges, Mechelen (Belgium), Middelburg (Netherlands), Fourmies, Hauts-de-France (France), and Norwich (United Kingdom).
Implementation of the action plans was greatly hindered in the first nineteen months of the project due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to lockdowns and other restrictive measures and which made it impossible to implement many real-life (in person) co-creative actions. In the face of the greater difficulty pilot hosts had to resort to less effective online modes of co-creation. After the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were lifted in the Spring of 2022 implementation of (adapted) action plans could be begun in real-life settings. After the Summer of 2022 implementation processes and the number of actions implemented intensified, more particularly in the pilots Bruges, Middelburg, Fourmies, and Mechelen.
In total, over 60 activities were deployed, resulting in about a hundred sub activities. Performance of the co-creation pilots was measured using five key performance indicators. In terms of CO2 emission reduction impact, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed first to achieve (and exceed) the goal of 3,422 tons CO2 emission/year. They then reached 224% of this target (i.e. 7,677 tons CO2 emission/year). Four out of six pilots met their individual CO2 emission reduction impact goals. In terms of households engaged, the co-creation pilots jointly (i.e., on aggregated level) managed to exceed the household engagement goal of by engaging 6,769 households. Four out of six pilots achieved their individual household engagement goal. Other performance indicators on which co-creation pilots were monitored pertained to investments made, behavioural change and social networks formation. The pilots did quite well on the latter. Average investments in co-creation pilots were estimated to be about €196,538,293.
Challenges encountered in the co-creation pilots pertain to instrumental framing, letting go of traditional (i.e., top-down) ways of working, departmental interests, dependence on local stakeholders, personnel turnover, the COVID-19 pandemic, having to do with challenges and risks potential adopters perceive (like high upfront costs and negative ‘myths’ about sustainable heat options), and lack of (access to) information. 4
In different ways the co-creation pilots contributed to setting the right conditions under which (more advanced) co-creation in sustainable heat can be implemented in the future. This approach entails both co-creative action and being tailored in combination with sustainable heat policy, which is necessary to persuade local stakeholders when implementing co-created plans. The co-creative three-step approach developed in SHIFFT can be considered for use and for scaling in locations outside the initial SHIFFT co-creation pilots. Scaling pertains to replicating certain successful SHIFFT pilots in other cities or even regions, sharing the approach and tools developed (i.e., action plan approach, monitoring approach, CO2 impact tool, expert team support) with expert platforms on heat transitions, or expanding ongoing local practices and projects to adjacent streets or neighbourhoods. Most of the scaling modes mentioned are, in fact, already set in motion.
The widespread adoption of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology as a prominent renewable energy source has significant implications for the economy of households and distribution system operators (DSOs). It is crucial to analyse these impacts in light of recent pricing policy changes, including Real-Time Pricing (RTP), Time-of-Use (TOU), and Feed-in Tariffs (FiT). This study analyses the impact of pricing policies based on actual load consumption, pricing rate, and PV generation data. An economic comparison of various scenarios for a typical household in the Netherlands is conducted by determining the optimal values for PV size. The findings suggest that transitioning to RTP policies reduces households’ economic advantages. The introduction of FiT further diminishes the financial benefits for households and increases the Payback period (PP). Moreover, the study reveals that imposing an export power limit of less than 3 kW can increase households’ energy costs.
...
The widespread adoption of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology as a prominent renewable energy source has significant implications for the economy of households and distribution system operators (DSOs). It is crucial to analyse these impacts in light of recent pricing policy changes, including Real-Time Pricing (RTP), Time-of-Use (TOU), and Feed-in Tariffs (FiT). This study analyses the impact of pricing policies based on actual load consumption, pricing rate, and PV generation data. An economic comparison of various scenarios for a typical household in the Netherlands is conducted by determining the optimal values for PV size. The findings suggest that transitioning to RTP policies reduces households’ economic advantages. The introduction of FiT further diminishes the financial benefits for households and increases the Payback period (PP). Moreover, the study reveals that imposing an export power limit of less than 3 kW can increase households’ energy costs.
Value dynamics in energy democracy
An exploration of community energy initiatives
In the European Union, energy democracy (ED) is considered a socially desirable policy goal. One way to achieve ED is through empowering local communities to become agents of value change who can pursue more sustainable and equitable energy provision with community energy initiatives (CEI). However, such people-driven value change is complex in nature. CEIs are multifaceted sociotechnical systems that bring together sets of values and are composed of agents (i.e., people), technologies (e.g., solar panels), and institutions (e.g., renewable energy policies). Yet not much research is conducted into how values relate and overlap within this complex nexus of people - technology - institutions on a pathway to democratizing the energy sector through civic participation. In this paper, we spotlight value relationality to capture the diversity in the value landscape of people-driven energy transitions. We claim that each sociotechnical system has “climate” of its own, or value dynamics, induced by interrelating values. We propose an account that captures value dynamics, explores value sets brought together by the different sociotechnical components of CEIs and investigates various ways in which these value sets interrelate. To elucidate value dynamics in the context of CEIs, we have conducted a literature review, a content analysis of regional, national (i.e., Dutch), and EU policies, and expert interviews in two illustrative case studies. We finalize the paper with recommendations for further research on value dynamics in CEIs across various sociotechnical contexts.
...
In the European Union, energy democracy (ED) is considered a socially desirable policy goal. One way to achieve ED is through empowering local communities to become agents of value change who can pursue more sustainable and equitable energy provision with community energy initiatives (CEI). However, such people-driven value change is complex in nature. CEIs are multifaceted sociotechnical systems that bring together sets of values and are composed of agents (i.e., people), technologies (e.g., solar panels), and institutions (e.g., renewable energy policies). Yet not much research is conducted into how values relate and overlap within this complex nexus of people - technology - institutions on a pathway to democratizing the energy sector through civic participation. In this paper, we spotlight value relationality to capture the diversity in the value landscape of people-driven energy transitions. We claim that each sociotechnical system has “climate” of its own, or value dynamics, induced by interrelating values. We propose an account that captures value dynamics, explores value sets brought together by the different sociotechnical components of CEIs and investigates various ways in which these value sets interrelate. To elucidate value dynamics in the context of CEIs, we have conducted a literature review, a content analysis of regional, national (i.e., Dutch), and EU policies, and expert interviews in two illustrative case studies. We finalize the paper with recommendations for further research on value dynamics in CEIs across various sociotechnical contexts.
Including justice in renovation policies considering the socio-spatial vulnerability to energy poverty
A Case Study-Mixed Methods (CS-MM) approach
Driven by climate change and energy crises, an increasing number of households in the European Union are becoming vulnerable to energy poverty. However, current renovation programs fall short in effectively targeting and addressing the needs of vulnerable groups, particularly in underprivileged neighborhoods where low effectiveness rates and resident resistance to renovation measures persist. This exacerbates the risk of social and spatial inequity, calling for an urgent integration of justice considerations in European renovation policies.
To address this challenge, this study proposes a novel case-study mixed methods (CS-MM) approach to include justice in renovation policies, considering the socio-spatial vulnerability to energy poverty. The case of Amsterdam Zuidoost is examined to achieve four main objectives: [1] identify systematic challenges in tackling energy poverty in underprivileged neighborhoods, [2] develop a vulnerability framework encompassing social, economic, energy, and building-related factors, [3] identify and localize energy vulnerable groups, and [4] tailor policy strategies in a multi-stakeholder environment based on the characteristics and needs of the identified vulnerable groups. The findings illustrate how the CS-MM approach can be applied to incorporate justice into renovation policies, informed by local insights on energy poverty.
From a scientific perspective, this study contributes to the existing knowledge by providing insights into the identification of vulnerable groups, the inclusion of justice in renovation policies, and the deployment of a CS-MM approach to address socio-spatial vulnerability to energy poverty. From a societal standpoint, the findings empower local decision-makers to identify vulnerable groups and tailor policies accordingly.
...
Driven by climate change and energy crises, an increasing number of households in the European Union are becoming vulnerable to energy poverty. However, current renovation programs fall short in effectively targeting and addressing the needs of vulnerable groups, particularly in underprivileged neighborhoods where low effectiveness rates and resident resistance to renovation measures persist. This exacerbates the risk of social and spatial inequity, calling for an urgent integration of justice considerations in European renovation policies.
To address this challenge, this study proposes a novel case-study mixed methods (CS-MM) approach to include justice in renovation policies, considering the socio-spatial vulnerability to energy poverty. The case of Amsterdam Zuidoost is examined to achieve four main objectives: [1] identify systematic challenges in tackling energy poverty in underprivileged neighborhoods, [2] develop a vulnerability framework encompassing social, economic, energy, and building-related factors, [3] identify and localize energy vulnerable groups, and [4] tailor policy strategies in a multi-stakeholder environment based on the characteristics and needs of the identified vulnerable groups. The findings illustrate how the CS-MM approach can be applied to incorporate justice into renovation policies, informed by local insights on energy poverty.
From a scientific perspective, this study contributes to the existing knowledge by providing insights into the identification of vulnerable groups, the inclusion of justice in renovation policies, and the deployment of a CS-MM approach to address socio-spatial vulnerability to energy poverty. From a societal standpoint, the findings empower local decision-makers to identify vulnerable groups and tailor policies accordingly.