Content uploaded by Jan Schiefelbein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Schiefelbein on Aug 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY STRATEGIES IN
COMMUNITIES – RESULTS WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF IEA ANNEX 63
Jan Schiefelbeina, Carissa S. Slotterbackb, Jens-Phillip Petersenc, Andreas Kochd,
Helmut Strassere, Oskar Mair Am Tinkhofe, Jacques Kimmanf, Kenneth Churchg,
Jens Freudenbergh, Marcus Fuchsa, Dirk Müllera
a RWTH Aachen University, E.ON Energy Research Center, Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and
Indoor Climate, Aachen, Germany, jschiefelbein@eonerc.rwth-aachen.de
b University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Minneapolis, USA, schiv005@umn.edu
c Technical University of Denmark, Department of Civil Engineering, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark,
jepete@byg.dtu.dk
d Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, European Institute for Energy Research, Karlsruhe, Germany,
Andreas.Koch@eifer.uni-karlsruhe.de
e Salzburg Institute for Regional Planning and Housing, Salzburg, Austria,
helmut.strasser@salzburg.gv.at
f Hogeschool Zuyd, Heerlen, Netherlands, jacques.kimman@zuyd.nl
g Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada, ken.church@canada.ca
h Deutscher Verband für Wohnungswesen, Städtebau und Raumordnung e.V., Berlin, Germany,
j.freudenberg@deutscher-verband.org
Abstract:
Cities are responsible for more than 70 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, cities can play a major
part within the CO2 emission reduction goals of the Paris agreement. Lack of technical knowledge and
solutions has often been seen as major challenge for energy efficiency implementation. However, findings of
the International Energy Agency (IEA) Annex 51 – Case Studies & Guidelines for Energy Efficient
Communities – showed that the primary challenges result from inefficient organizational processes and
unsupportive framework for implementation. Thus, solutions have to be found how the energy and urban
planning can act more efficiently to successfully support the implementation of energy strategies within urban
areas. Within the IEA Energy in Buildings and Communities (EBC) Program, the Annex 63 – Implementation
of Energy Strategies in Communities – aims at giving recommendations for an optimized energy and urban
planning process to support decision makers as well as planners. Therefore, existing legal frameworks,
processes and case studies within energy planning in communities were analysed. This paper shows first
results of the Annex 63 to serve as orientation for decision makers and other interested persons in the field
of urban energy planning.
Keywords:
Communities, Energy Planning, Urban Planning, Annex 63, Energy in Buildings and Communities
Programme
1. Introduction
Urbanization is leading to a growth of cities around the globe. According to the United Nations
global report on human settlements more than 50 % of world population is living within cities [1].
With an increasing number of people living within urban areas the demands for housing, work, food
and mobility are growing. Overall, these demands are increasing energy consumption within cities,
with urban areas emitting more than 70 % of global greenhouse gas emissions [1]. In addition to
this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that ongoing climatic
change might cause irreversible, negative impacts on the world’s ecosystems and economy [2]. To
reduce the risk of these impacts, the increase in global, average temperature, compared to pre-
industrial times, should not exceed 2 °C. This aim is the essential part of the Paris Agreement [3],
which is the first agreement of 197 nations to undertake strong efforts to act against climatic
change. As a major contributor to global emissions, urban areas must position themselves to play a
2
central role within these efforts. Thus, strategies to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions
should be identified, developed and implemented within cities, globally.
Within the Annex 51 – Case Studies & Guidelines for Energy Efficient Communities – program of
the International Energy Agency (IEA) ways to support the implementation of energy efficient
strategies into cities have been developed and analyzed [4]. The Annex 51 approach focused
holistically on the built environment at a city’s district scale. This means that instead of single
building scope, multiple buildings and their complex interaction with users and energy systems
were considered. One of the main assumptions of Annex 51 was that technical barriers and lack of
technical knowledge were major implementation challenges. However, findings of the Annex 51
also showed that an absence of process organization and coordination as well as weak supportive
frameworks hindered the implementation of energy efficient strategies in communities. Moreover,
Annex 51 demonstrated that energy and urban planning typically co-exist, but worked separately.
On the one hand, this was a result of organizational structures within municipalities, where energy
and urban planning often belonged to different departments. On the other hand, energy and urban
planners were, in many cases, not aware of the processes and instruments of the other planning
disciplines.
Considering that communities are understood as the smallest, functional unit of a municipality (see
Figure 1) then the question arises on how to generate a framework that supports the implementation
of these more holistic solutions.
Fig. 1. Classification of terms building, community, municipality, region and nation
The IEA Annex 63 – Implementation of Energy Strategies in Communities – project aims to
address this question (https://www.annex63.org/). It is part of the IEA Energy in Buildings and
Communities (EBC) program, with the intention of international coordination of research activities
and knowledge exchange between 19 organizations in 11 countries in the field of energy efficient
buildings and cities. Their expertise ranges from urban planning, energy science, consulting, and
housing to social science. The project working time is from 2014 to the end of 2017. The Annex 63
objective is to give recommendations on procedures for implementation of optimized energy
strategies at the scale of the community. The main target groups for the recommendations are the
municipalities, as well as energy and urban planners. Thus, the recommendations focus more on
process organization and supportive frameworks so as to advance previously identified technical
solutions. Special emphasis within these recommendations will be placed on the synergies between
energy and urban planning. The conditions prevailing over both energy and urban planning often
limit the prospects for energy efficient strategies within communities. Thus, Annex 63 aims at
closing the gap between urban and energy planning.
Initial research in Annex 51 identified stakeholders as playing an important role for success or
failure of energy projects in communities. The former’s focus on technical solutions did not
3
sufficiently involve stakeholders, which often resulted in public or political push-back during later
project phases and a consequential lack of support for implementation. Thus, the Annex 63
additionally aims at identifying ways to successfully engage stakeholders into the planning process.
Moreover, the Annex 63 aims to use the stakeholder engagement as a means to closing the gap
between urban and energy planning. Information and knowledge about energy strategies in
communities should be made available for urban planners, municipalities and other interested
persons and organizations. Finally, the Annex 63 should support the implementation of energy
efficiency concepts within communities and foster emission reduction within cities.
This paper is meant to highlight initial Annex 63 ideas and results for municipalities, energy and
urban planners, as well as other interested persons and organizations. The Annex 63 methodology
and structure is shown at the beginning, followed by a results chapter. On the one hand, general
results, including questionnaire responses of participating countries as well as important cluster
themes, are listed. On the other hand, results of stakeholder involvement and organization clusters
are discussed in more detail.
2. Methodology
Based on results of Annex 51, an international team of participants with different backgrounds was
formed to cooperate within Annex 63. At the beginning, the team built consensus on the Annex
aims and organizational structure, resulting in four subtasks, shown in Figure 2:
- Subtask A: Energy strategies for communities – methodology of implementation
- Subtask B: Planning Process
- Subtask C: Case studies
- Subtask D: Information exchange and dissemination
Fig. 2. Annex 63 subtasks and related themes
Subtask A dealt with the question of how cities can organize the process of implementation of
energy efficient strategies in communities. Further research questions were developed: how a
4
community should be defined, how national and regional goals can be “translated” to the
community scale, which policy instruments should be used and how the communication and later
evaluation should be organized. Subtask B focused on the question of how to merge the disciplines
of urban and energy planning, which was closely related to the implementation issues of Subtask A.
Subtask C is focused on the practical implementation of energy-efficiency strategies in
communities, and how local conditions, the applications of tools and other actions of the local
planners enabled a successful implementation of energy-efficiency solutions. Subtask D is ongoing
and focuses on the information exchange and communication of project outcomes with decision
makers, planners and other interested persons and organizations.
At the outset and to gather information about national practices, instruments, processes, and case
studies, questionnaires were prepared for participating countries and their municipalities. The aim
was to achieve a view of the status quo in current energy and urban planning processes in different
countries. Responses were analysed within Annex working groups and discussed with
municipalities and planners to get a better understanding of their needs in the context of energy
efficiency planning. Important measures were identified, which have been grouped within relevant
clusters. Finally, initial best-practice examples were found and recommendations for planners and
decision makers were formulated.
3. Results and Discussion
Ten participating countries (Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan,
Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US) returned answers to the questionnaires.
Separation between energy and urban planning is typical, except from Denmark and Netherlands.
For instance, in the Netherlands energy and urban planning are co-located in the same department.
Both Netherlands and Denmark have developed strategies at governmental level that interconnect
urban and energy planning. The separation of urban and energy planning within other countries is
associated with divided responsibilities between the departments and lack of inter-departmental
planning.
In most countries the government is responsible for environmental issues and target setting, while
municipalities are in charge of the implementation to support these targets. In many cases,
governments define environmental targets and downscale them to community levels. However, this
procedure often leaves communities in the situation of being responsible for meeting targets, which
might be impractical for implementation due to specific community structure or due to not
accounting for local interests and needs.
Fig. 3. Relevant clusters (right) with implementation phases (left)
5
Moreover, questionnaire responses show that the implementation phases often lack a monitoring
and evaluation phase, which is able to quantify the progress and current achievements of single
projects or the overall energy efficiency transition process. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether a
project has been a success. This causes uncertainty, which limits confidence and impedes further
decisions or planning phases for energy efficiency implementation.
The analysis and comparison of relevant instruments and processes within the 10 participating
countries led to identification of 88 relevant measures. In this case, we define a measure as any
action or program that can influence the implementation process. The 2000-Watt site certification
scheme is one example for a measure. The 2000-Watt Society idea is based on the concept, that
around 2000 Watt constant primary energy power could be used per person on the globe, while still
being sustainable [5]. The 2000-Watt certification is intended to trigger energy efficiency
implementation within cities and raise the public awareness of sustainability.
The analysis of relevant measures showed, that single measures of different nations had similar
aims and focus, such as the Swiss 2000-Watt Society or the German National Action Plan on
Energy Efficiency (NAPE) [6]. Both aim at supporting energy efficiency actions as well as defining
criteria for energy efficiency evaluation. Thus, all measures have been grouped within 9 clusters to
extract relevant topics beyond national borders. Figure 3 shows the clusters and their entry points in
time.
The clusters “Targets” and “Renewable Energy” have been identified as important for initiating a
municipality’s transition to low carbon environment start. Both should define aims as well as the
strategic path of implementation. The question of how to transform or translate national energy
goals to community is of particular importance for the “Targets” cluster. On the one hand, these
goals should be realistic, while, on the other hand, they should not undermine ambitions to
implement a high level of energy efficient concepts. The “Renewable Energy Strategies” cluster
aims at enabling the integration of large shares of renewable energy into communities. These
strategies typically incorporate technical, social, economic and political issues and are developed in
cooperation with local key stakeholders. Hence, Renewable Energy Strategies can also be seen as a
guiding framework for the following implementation process of energy targets. Central to strategy
is the organization and planning of the most appropriate and strategic measures on how to reach the
energy targets. This includes the use of measures from all other clusters makes renewable energy
strategies to a platform in which the other measures are anchored in. Moreover, the domains of
energy efficiency and energy demand reduction are part of this cluster. Both “Targets” and
“Renewable Energy” cluster are closely related to the analysis of the status quo of the city district,
which includes factors, such as energy demand, urban topology or involved stakeholders, because
these factors might be relevant for realistic target setting and energy strategy. Furthermore, the
potential analysis plays an important role for most clusters, especially the “Renewable Energy”
cluster, as it defines the limitations and possibilities of renewable energy and energy efficiency
integration.
Special emphasis is put on the integration of local stakeholders and the municipality, as their
engagement is relevant for success in the overall project. The “Competition Processes” cluster
should make suggestions on how to create and implement energy efficiency design programs and
competitions for urban development projects. Furthermore, this cluster aims at defining the
parameters by which to assess and benchmark energy efficiency concepts and their baseline
conditions. The “Decision Support Systems” cluster focuses on the question of how to make
decisions under conditions of uncertainty by integrating local knowledge, stakeholders and
expertise into the decision process. Moreover, the role of supportive tools and data management
strategies are explained. The “Legal Framework” cluster accounts for the separation of national
regulations regarding energy and urban planning and suggests ways to efficiently function within
existing legal constraints. Moreover, the “Socio-Economic Criteria” cluster deals with further
parameters to monetise or incorporate the value of energy efficiency actions in decision making and
for raising awareness in society and community stakeholders.
6
Table 1. Clusters with conditions, content and output
Cluster name
Compelling conditions
Content
Output
Target Setting
National and/or
municipal targets
"Translation" of
targets to community
scale
Methods, indicators
Renewable Energy
Strategies
Renewable energy
technology and
potential
Enabling integration of
renewable energy in
communities
Guideline
Legal Frameworks
Existing legal
frameworks
Regulative framework
for energy and urban
planning
Guideline
Competition Processes
Legal regulations for
competitions for energy
efficiency
implementation
Competition program,
focusing on
sustainability issues,
with transparent
assessment
Assessment
suggestions;
Requirements for
sustainability experts
Planning and Decision
Support Systems
Data uncertainty;
Different data
knowledge and access
per actor
Decision under
uncertainty, supported
by data and tools
Work flow for decision
making
Implementation of
Monitoring
Municipal monitoring
strategy/concept
"Translation" of
monitoring strategy to
community scale
Guideline
Stakeholder
Involvement
Different stakeholders;
Identify relevant
stakeholders and
common interest
Efficient way to
involve stakeholders
Guideline
Socio-economic
Criteria
Stakeholders are
willing to include other
criteria than investment
cost only
Analysis of best-
practice examples; List
of further criteria
Guideline (criteria and
methods); SWOT
analysis
Organizational
Framework
Different
organizational
structures
Description of
integrated planning
Recommendations for
integrated planning
The cluster focuses on criteria beyond conventional investment practices. “Stakeholder
Involvement” is another important cluster within Annex 63. The cluster aims at strategies for
identification of relevant stakeholder as well as approaches for engaging them in planning
processes. The “Organizational Framework” cluster accounts for the question of how to combine
the physical activities of urban and energy planning organisations. This question is relevant for
nations and cities, where both disciplines work separately, often leading to sub-optimal processes
7
and solutions. Finally, the “Implementation of Monitoring” cluster accounts for the question of how
to integrate monitoring and evaluation concepts into energy efficiency implementation. Table 1
shows an overview of clusters, their content, conditions, and output. There is and should be strong
interlinkages between the different cluster topics. The clusters should not be seen as standing alone.
However, each cluster has a different focus of importance for energy efficiency implementation and
only the combination of all cluster themes enables sufficient implementation support. In the
following part, results of the stakeholder involvement and the organization cluster are discussed.
3.1. Stakeholder involvement
The stakeholder involvement cluster emphasizes the essential role that engaging key interests and
experts could play in supporting urban development design, decision making and implementation.
The integration of energy planning and urban planning is complex and necessarily requires an
extensive scope of expertise and has impacts on a wide range of individuals and organizations.
Engaging those who are impacted and who may have valuable knowledge will make planning
efforts more effective and build a base of support for implementation [7]. The term, stakeholder, is
often used to describe a party who has a personal or professional stake in the outcome of a process.
Integrated energy and urban planning brings not only these interests, often representing multiple
levels of decision making, but also stakeholders with economic, social, environmental, political, and
technical interests effectively broadening the capability of the design team.
The act of stakeholder engagement has been typically pursued to meet legal requirements (in some
local and national contexts), informing the public or enhancing understanding of problems. Its role
in exploring potential solutions, producing higher quality plans and projects, and improving the
quality of information informing decisions has often been downplayed by the challenge of
identifying and accessing the key participants [8]. In the context of supporting implementation of
technical solutions for energy efficiency, generating support for decisions and their implementation,
especially across disciplines and organizations, requires structured approaches to identifying and
selecting stakeholders for effective stakeholder participation and also ensuring greater inclusion of
the range of potential interests [9]. For example, commonly used approaches generally account for
those interested in a project or issue, as well as those with power or influence [10]. In order to
account for differences in the distribution of potential impacts however, stakeholders for a project in
the Netherlands were identified ant targeted based on socio-economic criteria. Another approach
from the City of Guelph in Canada illustrated how stakeholders (e.g. utilities, NGOs, neighbours,
chamber of commerce) were identified and then categorized based on their roles in the decision
making process: as regulators, transactors, active interests, and audiences [11].
In terms of organizing stakeholder involvement, the general rule of “early and often” rule applies.
The approach taken for identification and selection may vary depending on the goal of the organizer
and for how stakeholder input might impact the overall decision. The International Association for
Public Participation represents these goals on a spectrum that runs from lower levels of engagement
via informing and consulting, to higher levels of engagement reflecting collaboration and
empowerment [12]. Practical factors also influence the involvement of stakeholders: a planners’
capacity to accommodate, stakeholders’ personal or professional expectations, and local resources
available. All may impact the scope and effect of the stakeholder inclusion effort. Examples from
the Annex 63 cases suggest the need for stakeholders to be involved in setting expectations for their
involvement and the goals that define the process. To establish this criteria, focus groups are a
commonly used technique for engaging views and expectations from various stakeholders and
advisory, steering, and technical committees can also be used to structure strategic stakeholder
engagement. Any facilitation that helps advance deliberation can also be particularly helpful when
bringing together diverse stakeholder who may have conflicting perspectives but need to work
toward consensus around implementation. To augment the “early and often” rule however is the
need for continued stakeholder involvement; from initial concept discussions through more details
8
planning and design. Most importantly though, case studies have shown that stakeholders need to
be consulted on a continuous basis.
3.2. Organisation and Planning Processes
The energy transition within cities seems to require new organisational frameworks to support the
planning process for all stakeholders. Cajot et al. analysed urban planning processes and identified
contradictory objectives and uncertainty in process design as major challenges [13]. New kinds of
organisational frameworks can serve as solution by enabling an efficient exchange between all
relevant actors and create transparency in communication.
Current organisational frameworks are often based on top-down approaches, mainly expressed by
zoning or master planning for energy concepts. However, resulting actions of top-down planning
have an impact on local actors, which might lead to lack of participation and missing integration of
local expertise or, even worse, to resistance against the actions of the top-down planning and project
failure. Moreover, local stakeholders often show interest in direct participation, which can be
interpreted as interest in bottom-up approaches. Heyder et al. proposed to integrate both, top-down
and bottom-up, approaches [14]. For instance, this could be achieved by adding stakeholder
interests and objectives into top-down planning instruments, such as certification schemes. Thus,
the Annex 63 is analysing both concepts, top-down and bottom-up, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Steps in top-down and bottom-up local energy planning processes
Concept oriented top-down approach from
district concept to pilot project
Project oriented bottom-up approach
from pilot project to district concept
1. Set up of a local project team
1. Set up of a local project team
2. Clarify local institutional framework
2. Define energy objectives of local pilot
project
3. Physical analysis and potentials
3. Technical and financial feasibility study
for the pilot project
4. Involvement of local key actors
4. Detailed definition of the pilot project
5. Develop of a common vision for long-term
energy goals
5. Public tender / competition
6. Derivation of specific objectives and sub
goals
6. Involvement of local key actors
(stakeholder analysis)
7. Definition of indicators to measure success
7. Implement local pilot project
8. Define action plan: ranking and time frame
for measures
8. Documentation, valuation and
dissemination of results
9. Discussion of energy concept by the local
government
9. Conceptual design for development of a
district concept
Communication and networking are core issues to link both approaches together. An administrative
body should provide the process management. It should be aware of the different needs and
interests of the diverse stakeholders and of potential conflicts arising during the ongoing process. A
local team in the administration or a public institution (such as local energy agency) can form that
administrative body. It is important, that participating actors agree on the administrative body,
respectively that it is trustworthy. Moreover, it should be able to handle all administrative
procedures related to the planning process. In case of limited capacity, this can be done by
delegation. However, the central coordination is important to support the planning process. As one
example from the case studies, the development and urban planning agency of Strasbourg - Agence
de Développement et d’Urbanisme de Strasbourg (ADEUS) initialized an exchange platform to
9
support local energy transition by providing a platform where different actors could meet and
exchange ideas and information. Another example is the foundation of the InnovationCity
Management GmbH (ICM) within the city of Bottrop, Germany. The city of Bottrop won the
InnovationCity competition to receive funding for multiple projects to become a paragon for energy
efficient cities. The ICM is a management company, which has been founded to coordinate the
transition process, including all energy efficiency projects, within the InnovationCity of Bottrop.
Thus, resources can be shared and knowledge can be spread more efficiently between different
projects and stakeholders.
4. Conclusion
First analyses of the Annex 63 results identified a lack of integral urban and energy planning for
most participating countries. Implementation of energy strategies does not occur solely through
technical energy planning. Implementation posits practical action, implying that the strategy needs
to become embedded in actual processes of development in local communities. As a result, the
interaction between energy strategy making and urban planning and development is crucial for
implementation. Thus, to increase the chance of successful energy efficiency implementations in
communities, strategies to enable both energy and urban planning as an integral concept have to be
found.
Case studies showed new organizational structures within planning, which were supportive for the
overall planning process. One common approach was to form a central coordination unit or a central
platform for exchange of all actors. These central entities could serve as administrative bodies for
integral planning.
Energy planners alone cannot enable implementation. In order for the written plans to become alive
in the real world, other stakeholders need to take action on the plans. Collaboration stands out as
one of the most crucial outcomes of this report. Without collaboration between different
stakeholders implementation represents a utopia. So championing – understood as the act of
bringing forth a course of action for others – represents an important endeavour in implementation
practices. Thus, the following steps for stakeholder involvement are recommended:
- Identify the lead persons and/or organisations: Who holds what responsibility under which
authority? Is there a critical technical or political champion, which should be engaged?
- Translate national, regional or municipal goals to community scale: What are the principles
and goals in terms of energy/emission-related benefits for the community?
- Determine local stakeholders: What stakeholders share project territory, have interest,
expertise and/or power to influence the implementation process?
- Identify stakeholder impacts and benefits: What impact or benefit could the project bring to
each stakeholder and what are the contact points?
- Seek for local support: In what ways can stakeholder contribute local expertise and
resources to support the project process?
- Determine stakeholder roles: What role can the stakeholder play within the project? What
are options to interact with the stakeholder? When should this interaction begin?
- Information exchange and documentation: When and how should ongoing interactions and
results be documented and shared?
The transition in processes, instruments and framework conditions of existing urban and energy
planning will take some efforts. However, an efficient interaction between energy and urban
planning, combined with a strategy for stakeholder involvement, has the potential to boost
implementation processes and actively support carbon emission reduction actions in communities.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support by German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs
and Energy (BMWi) under promotional reference 03ET1381A. Moreover, we would like to thank
10
the International Energy Agency for enabling the Annex 63 work as well as all Annex 63 partners
and participating municipalities for their productive cooperation.
References
[1] United Nations, Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011, 2011.
[2] European Commission, Energy Union Package: Communication from the Commussion to the
European Parliament and the Council. The Paris Protocol - A blueprint for tackling global
climate change beyond 2020, 2015.
[3] United Nations, Paris Agreement, 2015.
[4] R. Jank (Ed.), Case studies and guidelines for energy efficient communities: A guidebook on
successful urban energy planning ; [IEA EBC Annex 51 "Energy Efficient Communities: Case
Studies and Strategic Guidance for Urban Decision Makers"], Fraunhofer IRB-Verl., Stuttgart,
2013.
[5] Fachstelle 2000-Watt-Gesellschaft, 2000-Watt-Gesellschaft, available at
http://www.2000watt.ch/ (accessed on January 11, 2017).
[6] Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, Nationaler Aktionsplan Energieeffizienz
(NAPE), available at https://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Energieeffizienz/nape.html
(accessed on January 11, 2017).
[7] R.J. Burby, Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action, Journal of
the American Planning Association 69 (1) (2003) 33–49.
[8] J.M. Bryson, K.S. Quick, C.S. Slotterback, B.C. Crosby, Designing Public Participation
Processes, Public Admin Rev 73 (1) (2013) 23–34.
[9] J.M. Wondolleck, S.L. Yaffee, Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural
resource management, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.
[10] C. Eden, F. Ackermann, Making strategy: The journey of strategic management, Sage
Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1998.
[11] City of Guelph, Community Energy Plan: Strategic Plan and Critical Path, 2009.
[12] International Association for Public Participation Federation, Public Participation Spectrum,
available at http://www.iap2.org/.
[13] S. Cajot, M. Peter, J.-M. Bahu, A. Koch, F. Maréchal, Energy Planning in the Urban Context:
Challenges and Perspectives, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 3366–3371.
[14] A. Heyder, J. Huber, A. Koch, Nachhaltigkeit in Stadtquartieren zwischen standardisierter
Planung und kontextbezogenen Prozessen, in: M. Drilling (Ed.), Nachhaltige
Quartiersentwicklung: Positionen, Praxisbeispiele und Perspektiven, 1st ed., VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2012.