Content uploaded by Jörg Radtke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jörg Radtke on Oct 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original research article
Participation in Energy Transitions: A Comparison of Policy Styles
J¨
org Radtke
*
, Ortwin Renn
Research Institute for Sustainability – Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Germany
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Energy policy
Energy transition
Governance
Participation
Deliberation
Democratic innovations
ABSTRACT
Stakeholder and public participation in policymaking for energy transitions is one of the most promising ap-
proaches to fullling the promises of a democratic sustainability transition. Over the years, many studies have
been published about concepts, methodologies, and empirical results of participatory approaches and imple-
mentations. In this paper, we focus on the compatibility of participatory processes with different policy styles of
democratic governance. We conducted a systematic literature search comparing different concepts of democratic
governance and applying them to public participation, in particular that associated with energy transitions. Our
main objective in this paper is to link the requirements for a sustainable energy transition to governance pro-
cesses and structures; we further aim to delineate suitable formats for stakeholder and public participation. Our
analysis provides a basis for a wide-ranging and multi-perspective research agenda that promises to provide a
deeper understanding and explanation of complex governance arrangements for energy transitions. The ve
democratic policy styles that we selected for this review are: autocratic, adversarial, collaborative, reexive, and
inclusive governance. We conclude that none are adequate on their own, and so we put forth a novel hybrid we
call the “mediative approach.” From this approach, we derive a new research framework for addressing the
current challenges of democratic decision-making in energy transitions. Three pressing questions emerge, one
relating to the interplay of top-down and bottom-up modes of governance; a second to the conditions for actor
collaboration; and a third to the perception of democratic legitimacy by affected parties.
1. Introduction: Evaluating democratic governance in energy
transitions
Energy transitions are essential for achieving climate neutrality, a
topic of international discussions, notably in negotiations by the United
Nations Climate Change Conferences on the longevity of fossil fuels in
the global economy. Consensus is broad that reducing global warming
requires a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with one
pathway being the transition to renewable energies [1].
Governments, supranational institutions and regional authorities are
developing new, often experimental policies to govern renewable en-
ergy transitions. The most promising strategies involved collaborative,
multi-actor arrangements across all governance levels, including rep-
resentatives from the economy, politics, government, administrations,
and civil society [2,3]. These arrangements and the creation of new
energy services could lead to a new level and quality of public and
stakeholder participation. This possibility prompts our research ques-
tions: Which policy styles of democratic governance best facilitate the tran-
sition to sustainable energy transitions, and how can they be implemented in a
pluralistic and often polarized society?
To address these questions, we rst explore democratic legitimacy,
energy justice, and stakeholder and public participation. Policies that
hope to be effective need to be regarded as legitimate, just, and genu-
inely participatory. These three conditions are frequently mentioned in
the literature and reect the ndings of many empirical studies on how
transformations towards sustainability can be achieved [2,4–8]. What-
ever governance principles are followed, they need to achieve demo-
cratic legitimacy, promote inclusion, and deliver energy justice.
While this is true for nearly all public policies, the crucial challenge
in the energy transition lies in solving the trilemma of balancing the
negative impacts (rising costs, impairments, landscape change), build-
ing a robust new energy regime (security of supply, independence from
fossil fuels, cyber security) and providing environmental sustainability.
Achieving this requires nothing less than a consensus based on com-
munity, stakeholder, and institutional acceptance. This demands an
energy governance architecture that (1) balances top-down and bottom-
up policymaking; (2) incorporates the best innovations in energy sys-
tems; and (3) addresses citizen concerns and needs.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: joerg.radtke@rifs-potsdam.de (J. Radtke).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103743
Received 31 January 2024; Received in revised form 26 August 2024; Accepted 27 August 2024
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
2214-6296/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
For decisions about the energy transition to be seen as democrati-
cally legitimate, they must be made in a manner inclusive, participatory,
collaborative, reective and deliberative. Exactly these qualities are
needed if the green deal is not to be undermined by populist movements,
public skepticism, and autocratic politics. Achieving these qualities calls
for developing a new framework for energy transition governance,
inspired by a multi-dimensional, inclusive, and reective understanding
of collective action in a complex world [9].
Pursuing this end means looking more closely at stakeholder and
public participation in the governance of socio-technological transitions.
While many transition studies emphasize bottom-up approaches, known
as invented participation, the more traditional public policy studies
focus on invited participation, where actors are invited to participate in
governance arrangements following a top-down approach [10,11]. Both
perspectives are important for considering energy policy effectiveness
[12–14].
When looking at policy styles in sustainability and energy transition
politics, we consider ve different prototypes of governance, strongly
inuenced by the political conditions in different nations [15–17]. Of
course, energy transitions are also shaped by supra-national constella-
tions, and not only by specic economic, technological, and regional
conditions. However, typologizing governance styles reects the struc-
tures of energy transitions analyzed on the national and international
level [18]. These prototypes are reected both in national frameworks
and in cross-border energy systems arrangements, such as legal frame-
works or technological networks such as those in Europe (see in
particular [19]). We then critically analyze each governance prototype
for its likely impacts on an energy transition.
We identify a research gap exists in synthesizing and integrating
theoretical foundations of participation in energy transitions, different
governance styles in real-world politics, and the perspectives of the old
and new schools of policy and transition studies. We seek to close this
gap by linking these elements into a new framework that offers a
comprehensive, multi-perspective and inclusive model of participation
in governing energy transitions.
In the next chapter, we review our methodology, and in Chapter 3,
we lay down the theoretical foundations on which we discuss policy
prototypes in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, we discuss our critical analysis,
followed by future prospects for governance in Chapter 6, and a
concluding call for governance innovation in Chapter 7.
2. Methodology: A literature review
The objective of this study is to introduce a novel perspective on
inclusive governance in energy transitions by developing a new typology
of policy styles with respect to facilitating or impeding participatory
energy transitions. This was achieved through a combination of our
research experiences and a comprehensive literature review on policy
styles, participation in energy transitions, and inclusive governance
strategies. We conducted a systematic literature review following
established protocols to ensure methodological rigor and comprehensive
coverage [20,21].
We conducted an extensive search of databases, including Web of
Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and various li-
brary catalogues. Relevant keywords were used to capture the full range
of literature, including terms such as “energy governance,” “policy
styles,” “regulatory regimes,” “energy democracy,” “energy justice,”
“participation,” “autocratic,” “adversarial,” “collaborative,” “reec-
tive,” and “inclusive governance.” Keywords were rened through pre-
liminary searches and analysis of review papers and meta-analytic
studies [22]. For the systematic internet search, we used Boolean op-
erators (AND, OR, NOT) to enhance comprehensiveness and search
precision [23]. The search process was iterative, involving multiple
rounds of searching and renement to include emerging literature and
capture recent developments [24].
To ensure the quality and relevance of the literature included in our
study, we established specic inclusion and exclusion criteria. These are
listed in Table 1.
We included peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and policy re-
ports published in English from 2000 to 2024 that addressed governance
styles in energy transitions and participatory governance. We excluded
non-peer-reviewed sources, grey literature, articles not focused on
governance or participation in energy contexts, and studies outside the
specied timeframe. The methodological quality of the studies was
assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) criteria,
focusing on research design, data analysis, and validity of ndings [25].
This evaluation included clarity of research questions, methodological
rigor, and relevance to our research objectives [26].
Data extraction followed a structured framework, enabling system-
atic coding and categorization of key themes, governance typologies,
and participatory practices. MaxQDA software was used for qualitative
data analysis, facilitating a semantically meaningful categorization of
the literature landscape. The data extraction process involved extracting
data on governance modes, stakeholder engagement, decision-making
processes, and outcomes of participatory practices, as well as applying
thematic coding to identify patterns and relationships within the data
[27].
Findings were synthesized using an integrative approach, linking
theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence to provide a nuanced
understanding of governance dynamics in energy transitions [28]. This
synthesis included analyzing governance modes in energy policies,
differentiating between top-down and bottom-up approaches, and
examining empirical studies on democratic practices, procedures, stra-
tegies, and instruments in energy transitions. We focused particularly on
the challenges, limitations, and long-term impacts of participation
within the analyzed arrangements.
Based on the literature review, we developed a conceptual frame-
work to classify governance models in energy transitions. This frame-
work reects and integrates various theoretical constructs that we were
able to identify in the literature. In particular we investigated studies on
key dimensions of governance, including decision-making processes,
stakeholder engagement mechanisms, citizen participation, and demo-
cratic legitimacy. In the end, we chose a distinction that differentiated
between ve prototypical policy styles: autocratic, adversarial, collab-
orative, reexive, and inclusive governance styles. This typology of
policy styles was constructed using a deductive approach and validated
through feedback from experts in energy governance, participatory de-
mocracy, and sustainable development.
Despite the comprehensive approach, our study has several limita-
tions. The focus on peer-reviewed literature may result in publication
bias, excluding relevant insights from grey literature or unpublished
studies [29]. The evolving nature of the eld may mean some relevant
studies were not included, and although systematic methods were
employed, the interpretation of ndings is inherently subjective and
inuenced by researchers' perspectives [30].
In conclusion, our methodology integrates a comprehensive litera-
ture review, stakeholder engagement, and empirical analyses to develop
a sophisticated typology of governance models in energy transitions.
This study contributes to the advancement of energy governance
scholarship and offers practical implications for policymakers and
practitioners.
3. Theoretical foundations: Multilevel governance, democratic
legitimacy, and participation
Developing and exploring participation concepts has a long tradition
in the social sciences, particularly in relation to planning, implementa-
tion, and strategies for technology assessment [31,32]. Common forms
of participation have emerged, especially within the context of energy
transition policies [33]. They may occur at micro, meso, and macro
levels of society and can inuence different governance levels from the
local to the supra-national level [34]. What distinguishes these types of
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
2
participation in the energy transition?
First, they are related to multiple governance levels and require co-
ordinated actions on each level ([35], case studies in [36]). These ac-
tions need to be synchronized and coordinated with each other. This
requires formats and structures that link different policy and governance
levels [19,37,38].
Second, energy transitions are closely linked to political legitimacy.
They rely on actions and policies that impose costs and hardships on
people in the short term to gain major benets in the long term. Such
deferred gratication requirements need particular justication to be
widely accepted [39–42].
Third, transition policies can have major effects on how benets and
burdens are distributed, potentially leading to inequitable outcomes and
breaches of environmental justice [43–45]. Environmental justice has
three dimensions: (1) an equal or unequal distribution of goods and
resources, income and expenditures; (2) equal access to information,
transparency, individual rights, and inuence on collective decision-
making, and (3) equitable recognition of and respect for the claims,
concerns, and identities of local communities and vulnerable groups
[46,47]. These three dimensions materialize in different contexts (eco-
nomic, sociopolitical, geographic, and technological) [48,49]. They also
unfold in time and run through the familiar policy cycle stages of
Table 1
Source selection criteria.
1. Inclusion Criteria:
- Peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and policy reports published in English.
- Studies explicitly addressing governance styles (or regimes or regulatory frameworks) in energy transitions and participatory governance/practice/concepts.
- Publications from 2000 to 2024, ensuring the inclusion of contemporary insights and ndings.
2. Exclusion Criteria:
- Non-peer-reviewed sources such as opinion pieces and editorials.
- Grey literature.
- Articles not focused on governance or participation in energy contexts.
- Studies outside the specied timeframe.
Table 2
Four prototypes of participatory energy transitions covering all types of energy democracy and participation, concepts of stakeholder involvement and modes of
participation and planning (adapted by [60–63]).
Prototypes of
Participatory Energy
Transitions
Types of Energy
Democracy
Concepts of Stakeholder
Involvement
Types of Participation Policy Styles Modes of Participation &
Planning
Classical Type of Public
and Stakeholder
Participation in
Institutionalized
Settings
Participatory Energy
Democracy
(Individual)
participation in
political decision-
making
Functionalist & Neoliberal
Concept of Involvement
To improve the quality of decision
output. To represent all values and
preferences in proportion to their
share in the affected population
Instrumental type Find
the most cost-effective
way to make the risk
acceptable or tolerable
Epistemic type
Use experts to nd valid,
reliable, and relevant
knowledge about the risk
Autocratic
Governance
Limited
participation
Adversarial
Governance
Strong public
participation
Conventional mode of
community planning
Planning process: Less emphasis
on the specics of local context,
often driven by concerns for
economic efciency
Management strategy: Top-down
in management and
implementation; hierarchical
power structure
Location of knowledge and
expertise: Outsiders are experts,
locals are beneciaries
Outcome objectives: Pre-
determined, concrete
Discursive Type of
Participation in Open
Spaces
Deliberative Energy
Democracy
Focus on public debate
to achieve more
legitimate decision-
making
Postmodern Concept of
Involvement
To demonstrate variability,
plurality, and legitimacy of dissent
Reective type
Involve all affected
stakeholders to
collectively decide best
way forward
Reective
Governance
Strong public
participation and
deliberation
Participatory mode of
community planning
Planning process: Approach is
multi-dimensional and context-
specic, driven by local
knowledge and concerns for
economic equity
Management strategy: Bottom-up,
or synergy between top and
bottom; collaborative;
egalitarian power structure
Location of knowledge and
expertise: Locals are experts,
outsiders are facilitators
Outcome objectives: Evolving
outcome objectives; process and
outcome in constant dialogue
Direct Type of
Participation in
Decision-Making
Direct Energy
Democracy
Voting on options for
energy policies by the
public or citizen
assemblies
Anthropological Concept of
Involvement
To engage in common sense as the
ultimate arbiter in disputes (jury
model)
Participatory type
Include all actors so as to
expose, accept, discuss,
and resolve differences
Inclusive
Governance
Strong direct
public
participation
Community Type of
Material and
Collaborative
Participation in Energy
Projects
Associative Energy
Democracy
Self-governance by
voluntary and
democratic
associations
Material (Type 1)
Energy Democracy
Equal access to
material resources
Material (Type 2)
Energy Democracy
The ways in which
objects contribute to
the enactment of
public politics
Emancipatory Concept of
Involvement
To empower less privileged groups
and individuals
Participatory type
Include all actors so as to
expose, accept, discuss,
and resolve differences
Epistemic type
Use experts to nd valid,
reliable, and relevant
knowledge about the risk
Collaborative
Governance
Strong stakeholder
participation
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
3
translation, application, manifestation, adjustment, and re-evaluation
[50,51]. At its core, energy justice rests on two principles: (i) “Equal
rights to reliable and affordable modern energy services” and (ii) shared
“benets and burdens of modern energy systems” [52].
Fourth, energy transitions demand specic processes and practices
for including different stakeholders and the public. This is often referred
to as energy democracy [53]. The call for energy democracy focuses on
two key principles: (i) equal access to socially acceptable energy system
services, and (ii) equal distribution of the benets and risks related to
transitional policies. The rst principle includes the need for democratic
management of a common pool of resources [54–56] to determine how
access to these resources (such as clean air) is regulated and how fair
solutions for use are implemented.
The second principle is linked to the question of who has the au-
thority to promulgate collectively binding decisions. To achieve inclu-
sive energy democracy, the conventional system of energy management
must be replaced by a more democratic, egalitarian policy style, mainly
through resistance, appropriation, or restructuring [57,58]. These
transformative actions necessitate a radical reform of regulations, mar-
ket mechanisms, and the organization of the private as well as public
sector. The need for creating new institutions seems unavoidable given
the persistence of the existing governing structures. Democratic reforms
leading to energy transitions require an active redesign of policy regimes
through both top-down initiatives by governments and bottom-up ini-
tiatives through civic engagement [59].
The four conceptual approaches to participatory energy transitions,
governance levels, political legitimacy, and energy justice are summa-
rized in Table 2, where we distinguish the different types of energy
democracy, concepts of stakeholder involvement, and fundamental
types of participation in decision-making. Additionally, we relate these
styles to two essential modes of participation and planning and include
the ve different prototypes of energy policy on which we focus in the
next chapter.
As explained later in Chapter 5, we categorize the concepts of
participatory energy transitions into ve policy styles, grouped into
three distinct categories: autocratic and adversarial, collaborative, and
reective and inclusive.
The autocratic and adversarial type operates within institutionalized
settings, characterized by a typical top-down approach (summarized as
the classical type of public and stakeholder participation in institu-
tionalized settings (prototype #1)). Decision-making is driven by eco-
nomic efciency and includes input from various perspectives but does
not offer any opportunity for co-determination of policymaking. Auto-
cratic governance features centralized control, whereas adversarial
governance involves confrontational decision-making processes among
key parties or stakeholders.
In contrast, the cooperative style of participation – including all
participatory approaches to energy transitions based on the participa-
tory mode of community planning – emphasizes input from all organized
stakeholders in society and promotes negotiation and consultation
processes for reaching consensus or at least overwhelming support. In-
clusion is reserved for those who are recognized as worthy members of
the “club” by the political elite.
This second model of participatory energy transitions covers three
forms of governance. First, reective governance, considered as an
outow of the discursive type of participation that occurs in open spaces
(prototype #2), emphasizes deliberative energy democracy. It promotes
public debate and legitimacy in decision-making, valuing local knowl-
edge and equity. This approach features a discursive, bottom-up plan-
ning process with robust public participation. Second, inclusive
governance is similarly characterized by direct energy democracy,
where citizens vote on energy policies (summarized as the direct type of
participation in decision-making (prototype #3)). This approach is
focused on strong direct public participation through referenda and
citizen assemblies, ensuring inclusive governance. Third and nally,
collaborative governance is reected within the community type of
material and collaborative participation in (community) energy projects
(prototype #4), based on an emancipatory style of involvement of citi-
zens, stakeholders, and institutions and representing the ideas of asso-
ciative and material energy democracy.
In conclusion, the four prototypes of participatory energy transitions
illustrate various approaches to participatory governance in energy
transitions, each highlighting different levels of stakeholder involve-
ment and governance styles. The concepts will be further discussed in
Chapter 5 but are set out here in Table 2 for clarity and comparison.
Implementing energy democracy requires a deep understanding of
the scope and limitations of different concepts and formats of inclusive
governance and participation. Renn and Schweizer [63,64] distinguish
between functionalist, neoliberal, deliberative, anthropological, eman-
cipatory, and postmodern concepts of participation. The concepts serve
different objectives, follow different rationales and result in different
models and instruments. The rst three types (functionalist, neoliberal,
deliberative) are to be understood as classical types of participation.
They are manifested in concrete forms such as hearings, referenda, and
citizen forums. The second three types (anthropological, emancipatory,
postmodern) are less compatible with representative democratic struc-
tures; they include policy input by ordinary citizens via citizen juries,
action group initiatives, and open forums. And while these new formats
meet the need for innovative policymaking to promote the energy
transition, they also represent radically democratic approaches to col-
lective decision-making. Breaking the classical top-down mold of invited
participation, these new formats are paving the way for bottom-up cit-
izen-initiated action. They are part of a new social movement for dealing
with energy planning and conicts [11].
According to Renn and Schweizer [63,p.73], these concepts of
participation provide different approaches to meet three major chal-
lenges of complexity: rst epistemic complexity in terms of causal
connections, feedback, and modiers asking for joint fact-nding dis-
courses among experts (epistemic discourse); secondly, complexity
induced by deep uncertainty aiming at balanced and acceptable solu-
tions for unavoidable trade-offs between conicting values requiring
intensive stakeholder negotiations (reective discourse); and, thirdly,
visionary complexity resolving multiple ambiguities directed towards a
consensus on which alternative path for future developments society
should pursue. This last type of complexity requires the input of all ac-
tors in society (participatory discourse).
The distinction between different discourse types advocated by Renn
and Schweizer [63,64] is based on an Habermasian perspective [65–67]
on “rational discourse” and pursues the concept of invited participation.
It abstracts from the social movements that accompany the transition
and acts as trigger for legal and institutional changes.
In addition to the classication by Renn and Schweizer, which fo-
cuses on participatory concepts and formats, more generic classica-
tions of inclusive governance have been developed outside of energy
transition and sustainability literature (see reviews in: [68–70,
pp.28ff]). Two notable classication approaches should be mentioned.
The rst approach differentiates between participatory, associative,
deliberative, and material (in two variants) understandings of de-
mocracy [71–73]. Participatory democracy describes a policy regime
focused on individual rights to co-determine policies. The most popular
instrument of this variant is the inclusion of randomly selected citizens
for giving recommendations and advice to governments or administra-
tions. Within the concept of associative democracy, environmental NGOs,
representatives of social movements such as Fridays for Future and local
associations engage in (normally invited) discourses and initiate prac-
tical implementations of transitional policies. The concept of deliberative
democracy builds on organized public discourses that take place in the
context of citizens' meetings and dialogues [74–76]. The last form ma-
terial democracy unfolds in two versions [62]. In version 1, municipal
utilities, energy cooperatives, and other non-prot organizations offer
local, low-cost electricity tariffs and nancial participation in solar
plants or wind farms. In version 2, individuals and communities are
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
4
given the opportunity to inuence the design of spaces or energy in-
frastructures or to install wind or solar systems themselves.
The second notable classication approach distinguishes bottom-up,
community-based decision-making from top-down regulation and hier-
archical power structures in energy governance and planning proced-
ures [61,77–79]. The conventional mode of energy project planning is
driven by concerns for economic efciency and places little emphasis on
the specics of the local context. It operates by a top-down management
approach and within a hierarchical power structure, where external
experts provide the knowledge and local actors are beneciaries, with
pre-determined, concrete outcome objectives.
In contrast, community-based forms follow different modes of
participation and planning in energy transitions [61]. A participatory
mode of community planning adopts a multi-dimensional and context-
specic approach driven by local knowledge and concerns for eco-
nomic equity. This mode emphasizes a bottom-up approach of com-
munity participation or synergy between top and bottom, with a
collaborative and egalitarian power structure. Local actors are regarded
as experts, while external actors serve as facilitators, with evolving
outcome objectives and a constant dialogue between process and
outcome.
If we change the perspective of the connection between these modes
of participation and stakeholder involvement, we nd an amalgamation
of an instrumental and epistemic type of participation [60]. While the
rst aims to nd the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable
or tolerable, the second uses experts to nd valid, reliable, and relevant
knowledge about the risk. Both are typical characteristics of conven-
tional forms of participation in energy transitions. The more open and
bottom-up arrangements in energy participation are based on the
reective mode of participation (involving all affected stakeholders to
collectively decide the best way forward) and, of course, the participa-
tory prototype (including all actors to expose, accept, discuss, and
resolve differences).
This compilation allows us to derive ve key policy styles in energy
transitions. While the autocratic governance type allows only limited
opportunities for participation, the adversarial type promotes strong
public participation, though in a top-down, controlled way. The
collaborative governance mode also emphasizes strong participation,
but primarily with a focus on stakeholder involvement. In a different
way, forms of reective governance prioritize deliberation within pro-
cedures of public participation, while inclusive governance fosters direct
public participation via the modes of voting, referenda, citizen assem-
blies, and round tables.
Although the concepts in Table 2 come from different scientic tra-
ditions, they all describe approaches to transformations based on in-
ternal (discourse rules) or external (political culture) contexts. At the
same time, they are insufcient to cover the existing manifestations of
new democratic policymaking styles, nor are they differentiated enough
to improve our understanding of energy transitions. Therefore, in the
following chapter, we will suggest a new classication structure that
promises to be more useful for describing and analyzing participation in
the context of energy transitions.
4. Five prototypes of policy styles within democratic
governance of energy transitions
4.1. Overview of policy styles
There is no agreement among scholars of political theory regarding
what democratic governance means with respect to institutional struc-
tures, decision-making procedures, and the role of the political elite
versus stakeholders and citizens ([80,81], specically related to energy
transitions: [82]). Traditional policy analysis focuses on two categories:
the role of citizens and the structure of policymaking. The rst category
differentiates between direct and representative democracy, the second
between republicanism and liberalism [83]. Direct democracy provides
a constitutional framework for extensive voting power by citizens,
emphasizing referenda and community self-government. Representative
democracy follows the principle of delegation: citizens delegate the
power and legitimacy of collective decision-making to representational
bodies of governance (citizenship as civic knowledge). The two tradi-
tions differ the most in their approaches to legitimization in collectively
binding decision-making. The representative tradition is based on in-
direct legitimation, where politicians are elected by citizens. Participa-
tion plays only a supplementary role in supporting (or reinforcing)
democratic principles of governance [84]. The direct democracy tradi-
tion elicits citizen preferences on substantive issues and re-empowers
citizens to shape policies and political programs by direct voting [85].
In this understanding, participation is envisaged through instruments
for the co-production of collectively binding decisions [86].
Republicanism is focused on collective decision-making for the
common good and envisions extensive citizen participation for legiti-
mizing collectively binding rules and policies, while liberalism seeks to
protect citizens from an encroaching state, focusing on individual rights
and emphasizing social liberties.
In addition to the classic division into direct/indirect and repub-
lican/liberalism, many scholars have advocated a distinction between:
(i) elitist government of the people where the emphasis is on effective
and efcient governance; (ii) participatory government of and by the
people where the emphasis is on citizen participation and co-
determination; and (iii) social government of, by, and for the people
where the emphasis is on social justice and empowerment of citizens
[72,87].
In reality, however, these types are not found in a pure form; today's
democracies are hybrids that combine various components of all three
governance types [88,p.25]. One of these hybrid manifestations is the
model of “embedded democracy” [89]. This model implies that political
participation controls the political agenda-setting process through the
election of representatives. It is based on equal voting rights (elections)
and provides opportunities for powerful participation beyond voting
(freedom of expression, access to independent sources of information,
freedom of assembly, and inclusion of all actors within the relevant
political arena). Individual channels of participation correspond to the
ideas of representative democracy (participation through elections),
associative democracy (input and lobbying by associations), delibera-
tive democracy (participation through open exchange of arguments),
and participatory democracy (broad and direct input by citizens). The
forms of inuence are elections (representative), participatory budget-
ing (participatory), and citizen assemblies or mini-publics
(deliberative).
This short and condensed review reveals that classifying and cate-
gorizing different manifestations of democratic systems has been a
popular and wide-spread exercise in the political sciences with a wide
variety of classication schemes. Most classications use the role of and
division of power between the executive versus the legislative branch of
democratic government as the main criterion for assessing and catego-
rizing governance types [90]. Other classications point to the role and
number of political parties as essential criteria for distinguishing polit-
ical systems [91].
With respect to sustainable transformations in general and to energy
transitions in particular, we believe that a classication according to a
more detailed form of governance, i.e. policymaking style, is most
appropriate [15–17,92,93,9,p. 358–361]. Based on our literature review
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
5
and our own research, we suggest distinguishing ve prototypes. These
are: autocratic (duciary), adversarial (antagonistic, binary, polarized);
collaborative (liberal, delegational, pluralistic), reective (deliberative), and
inclusive (participatory).
1
These ve represent ideal types as used by the
sociologist Max Weber. In the Weberian sense, “ideal types” do not
represent empirical entities but provide a conceptual tool for analyzing
social phenomena, coming closest to what we can observe in reality.
From that perspective, most democratic systems are characterized by a
mix of the ve prototypes, but within each mix there is a dominant
structure or rationale that takes the lead in structuring the transition
governance. There may be other features linked to the other prototypes,
but one approach stands out as the most inuential in making policy.
Relying on prototypes rather than on empirical descriptions of each
system has several advantages: (1) it reduces the number of governance
structures to analyze, allowing research to focus on what is or appears
relevant; (2) it allows analysis to concentrate on features that actually
matter in the framework of each prototype; and (3) it facilitates the
delineation of normative advice because the various rationales provide a
consistent framework for aligning or realigning political innovations to
the prototype under investigation. These benets come at the cost of
typifying and generalizing over a large range and scope of policy styles,
and the classication remains at a rather abstract level. However, it
provides guidance and orientation for a more focused analysis of cases
and processes of energy transitions in different countries and policy
contexts [19,42].
4.2. Autocratic governance prototype (I)
Autocratic governance is characterized by a leading role of a political
leader in conjunction with a ruling party. This prototype is particularly
signicant in shaping the policies and strategies associated with energy
transitions, especially in countries where centralized control is preva-
lent. In order to be called democratic, the leadership needs to be
afrmed by regular elections that comply with democratic rules of
fairness and free voting rights [95,96].
Provided that elections are free and fair, autocratic-democratic sys-
tems attempt to keep opposition parties, civil society organizations, and
dissenting individuals at bay and to constrain their political voice and
inuence as much as legally possible [97]. There is a ne line between
autocratic leaderships that orchestrate mock elections and leaderships
that use all their communicative powers to put their representatives in a
good pole position but respect the democratic rules of free and fair
elections. Most often, autocratic leaders also try to limit the power of the
judiciary and try to exert inuence on the media.
One notable example of autocratic governance – not belonging to the
group of democratic regimes but rather prototypical for an autocratic
approach – is China. China is often cited as a key example of how
autocratic governance can facilitate a rapid energy transition through
centralized decision-making and state intervention [287,288,291,300].
The Chinese government has heavily invested in renewable energy,
especially wind and solar power, as part of its strategic development
plans [290,291,293,294]. This centralized approach allows for rapid
mobilization of resources and swift implementation of policies,
bypassing the slower consensus-building processes typical in de-
mocracies [98,289,292]. Russia provides another example, where the
state controls major energy resources and industries, using them as tools
of political power and economic strategy [295–297]. The government’s
control over oil and gas has been utilized not only to drive domestic
energy policy but also to exert inuence over other countries through
energy supply and pricing [101,298,299]. Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030
illustrates how an autocratic regime can attempt to diversify its econ-
omy away from oil dependency by investing in renewable energy [104].
The government has initiated several large-scale projects to develop
solar and wind energy, aiming to generate a signicant portion of its
electricity from renewable sources by 2030 [285,286]. Turning to
democratic political regimes, on which we focus in this article, political
systems such as those in Hungary, Turkey, Israel, and the US under
Trump could be associated with this prototype [99]. Several regimes in
the Global South can also be described by this category [100,295–299].
They include India, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
and Ethiopia [102,103, p.14f] [285,286].
In theory, such autocratic systems could initiate sustainable energy
transitions by means of executive power. If leaders are convinced that
this is necessary and politically wise, they can initiate ambitious energy
transition programs (cf. China: [100]). Autocratic governance in energy
transitions theoretically offers several advantages – although they are
unlikely to be realized [105]. Firstly, it allows for rapid decision-making.
Autocratic regimes can make swift decisions without the need for
lengthy democratic processes, which can accelerate the implementation
of energy policies. In purely democratic systems, ambitious policies for
the environment may conict with the leaders' ambitions to remain
popular and gain support from the less informed and less involved parts
of the population. Furthermore, the benets of the energy transition may
become clear only after the leader leaves power, so there is no self-
serving incentive for initiating actions that are sure to rufe the
feathers of established industry. Secondly, centralized control allows for
coordinated policy implementation, ensuring coherent and unied
execution, minimizing regional disparities and conicts. In autocratic
systems, political participation is strictly limited [96]. Finally, govern-
ments can direct signicant nancial and human resources towards
specic projects, such as large-scale renewable energy installations.
Autocratic leaders claim they know best what is good for the population.
However, there are challenges associated with autocratic governance
in energy transitions. Autocratic regimes often deliver their message
through symbolic and orchestrated forms of participation such as mass
campaigns, spectacular popular events, or orchestrated internet forums
and platforms. One major challenge is the lack of public engagement.
These participatory formats are rarely an expression of the various in-
terests, needs, and values of the population but rather an explicit show of
support for the leaders. Policies may be implemented without public
consultation, leading to potential social resistance and a lack of com-
munity support. Stakeholder and public participation understood as
codetermination of collectively binding decisions is widely alien to this
system. Additionally, centralized systems can lead to corruption and
misallocation of resources, which may hinder the effectiveness of energy
transition efforts. This also applies to the inuence of environmental
NGOs, which are at best tolerated but not supported or even consulted.
Without checks and balances, there is also a risk that energy policies
may prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability and envi-
ronmental concerns.
Empirical reality seems to conrm this analysis. In conclusion,
autocratic governance can signicantly inuence the pace and direction
of energy transitions, offering advantages in terms of speed and coor-
dination but also challenges related to transparency and public
engagement. Hungary, Turkey, Poland, the US under Trump, and lately
also Israel are all not frontrunners in energy transitions but rather
reluctant to move away from fossil fuels [33,105]. The examples from
China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia demonstrate how centralized decision-
making can drive substantial changes in energy systems but also high-
light the need for careful consideration of the social and environmental
implications of such approaches. These countries are also reluctant to
endorse EU or international policies for more climate protection, let
alone respect human rights for self-determination and free expression of
1
The seminal overview by Howlett and Tosun [17] distinguishes fours styles:
representative, centralist, participatory (consultative), and competitive. These
four roughly represent our four styles: collaborative, authoritarian, inclusive,
and adversarial. We further distinguish between reective (emphasis on
deliberation) and inclusive (emphasis on direct democracy). An earlier version
of our classication with slightly different labels has been published in Renn
[9,94].
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
6
opinions. These insights suggest that while autocratic governance can
facilitate rapid energy transitions, it must be balanced with mechanisms
to ensure accountability, transparency, and public participation in order
to achieve sustainable and equitable outcomes. China might be an
exception, but even here fossil energy sources are increasingly placed on
the market alongside renewable energy. It is too early to make a robust
judgment about the success or failure of Chinese energy transition
policies.
As a result, participatory efforts to initiate or promote energy tran-
sitions are not supported in autocratic systems. Even if an energy tran-
sition program is announced, the autocratic style favors top-down
technocratic solutions – as we can see in China, especially concerning
wind power expansion [106]. This way of implementing energy transi-
tions ignores the specic regional or local contexts and excludes local
communities, stakeholders, and affected citizens. It proceeds like a
bulldozer – probably effective, but hardly efcient or resilient, and
certainly not socially just [107]. Democratic legitimacy is mainly
generated by (blind) trust in political leaders and the central govern-
ment. It may be difcult to distinguish between authentic trust and a
coerced trust based on fear, but it can be stated that this special form of
legitimacy is always vulnerable to a shift towards a non-democratic
appropriation of power by the leadership and a dismissal of local,
regional, or social concerns [108].
4.3. Adversarial governance prototype (II)
The adversarial style of governance is typically characterized by two
dominating parties competing for public support and votes. These
parties develop strong ties with their constituencies, driven by rigid
ideologies and a sense of being the true representatives of the national
interest [9,16,94,109]. They often express condemnation for the
opposing party, with their primary goal being to remain in power or be
(re)elected. To achieve this, all legal means are employed to improve
their position, often at the expense of the competing party [110].
Another major aspect of adversarial systems is the strong dependence of
policymaking on legal requirements and the signicant role of litigation
in resolving conicts [111].
In adversarial governance, if one party sees climate protection as a
vote-winning issue, it might pursue ambitious sustainable energy pol-
icies. However, these policies are vulnerable to reversal if the opposing
party wins elections, as they might not align with its identity and ide-
ology [112]. Ambitious climate policies may also lack widespread public
support, potentially risking electoral success, leading to a situation
where the rhetoric remains but policies are not implemented, as seen in
examples from the US [113], Nordic countries [114], and Turkey [115].
Adversarial systems rely heavily on public support to align citizens
and stakeholders with a party's ideology. They tend to emphasize
“showcase participation,” inviting top-down involvement of stake-
holders or citizens in symbolic formats with often predetermined out-
comes [116]. The goal is to mobilize as many supporters as possible for
the party's agenda [117,118]. Formats such as public assemblies and
neighborhood groups are used to keep constituencies committed and
recruit new followers, while cross-party participatory formats are
avoided. The more polarized the parties, the less likely it is that
participatory bodies will cross over.
Countries with long traditions of two dominant parties, such as the
US, UK, Australia, and India, often exhibit adversarial styles ([119]; for
the US: [120]; for Australia: [121]; for India: [122]). Some Eastern
European democracies have also moved towards polarized two-party
systems [123]. The rise of right-wing populist parties across Europe
and beyond may create adversarial dynamics, with liberal democrats
opposing populist autocrats, potentially sidelining climate policies to
avoid unsettling constituencies [124].
This style of governance focuses on promoting the ruling party's
program and gaining public approval, often avoiding wider public
debate or citizen co-determination. For instance, the US infrastructure
strategy under President Joe Biden (“Build Back Better Plan”) was
designed with limited consultation, seeking public support post-
announcement [125]. When public pressure necessitates greater
participation, it may result in policy adjustments or reluctant public
discourse.
Adversarial governance refers to political and regulatory environ-
ments where conicting interests and opposition shape decision-making
processes. In energy transitions, this can signicantly impact policy
development and implementation. The most notable example is the
United States, where conicts between federal and state governments
led to disparities in renewable energy adoption [301–303]. Different
states also have varying priorities and policies regarding energy, which
contributes to these disparities [304,305]. For instance, some states like
California have aggressively pursued renewable energy targets, while
others have focused on fossil fuel interests. This fragmented approach
often results in policy inconsistencies and delays in achieving national
energy transition goals [126–131].
While some states like California are aggressively pushing for clean
energy, others, reliant on fossil fuels, lag behind due to the inuence of
powerful investor-owned utilities (IOUs) [320]. These IOUs, along with
other interest groups, often resist renewable energy policies to protect
their market dominance, leading to signicant obstacles in advancing
clean energy at the state level. Nonetheless, coalitions of non-utility
actors, including environmentalists and renewable energy advocates,
have occasionally weakened this opposition by promoting more inclu-
sive and justice-oriented frameworks to ensure marginalized commu-
nities benet from clean energy transitions [317,318,320].
Furthermore, the economic power of states signicantly inuences the
speed and effectiveness of energy transitions, as wealthier states can
afford to implement advanced clean energy projects, while poorer, fossil
fuel-dependent states struggle to make the shift [321,322,324]. States
continue to act as laboratories for climate policy innovation, exper-
imenting with ways to harmonize energy and climate goals despite
federal inertia [321]. Regional cooperation, such as the efforts in the
Northeast through cap-and-trade programs, demonstrates the potential
for progress when states collaborate [321,323]. The introduction of
multi-sector partnerships in some states shows that broader stakeholder
engagement can lead to more comprehensive and resilient policies
[316,319,321]. However, political and economic barriers, combined
with the lack of a cohesive national policy, slow the overall energy
transition and create inconsistencies in meeting national climate targets
[320]. Finally, the Biden administration’s focus on both mitigation and
adaptation, particularly in underserved communities, reects the need
to balance energy security, resilience, and equity [316,319]. Programs
such as Empowering Rural America illustrate how climate justice can be
integrated into the transition, yet the challenge remains of how to scale
these efforts nationally [325–327]. While federal initiatives like the
Ination Reduction Act (IRA) aim to push the clean energy agenda
forward, the ongoing conicts between state and federal governments,
as well as the inuence of conservative political actors, remain signi-
cant challenges to achieving comprehensive national climate goals
[328–331].
Germany's Energiewende, or energy transition, aims to shift from
nuclear and fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Despite broad
support, this transition faces signicant opposition from various politi-
cal and economic groups concerned about the costs and reliability of
renewable energy [306–308,311,312]. These adversarial dynamics have
led to debates over energy policy design, subsidies, and the future role of
coal and nuclear power [132,309,310,313–315]. In India, the energy
transition is characterized by conicts between different stakeholders,
including government agencies, private companies, and civil society.
The push for renewable energy is often met with resistance from coal-
dependent regions and industries, leading to adversarial negotiations
and policy compromises. This complex landscape has resulted in uneven
progress and challenges in scaling renewable energy solutions across the
country [133–137]. These examples from the US, Germany, and India
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
7
illustrate how adversarial dynamics shape energy policy, emphasizing
the need for mechanisms to facilitate constructive dialogue and
compromise.
Adversarial governance in energy transitions has advantages, such as
incorporating diverse perspectives, driving innovation, and enhancing
accountability and transparency. However, it also presents challenges
like policy gridlock, fragmentation, and inefcient resource allocation
due to competing interests. While adversarial governance fosters di-
versity and innovation, it can lead to delays and inefciencies. Suc-
cessful energy transitions in adversarial contexts require balancing
competing interests while ensuring accountability, transparency, and
equitable outcomes.
4.4. Collaborative governance prototype (III)
Collaborative governance systems are based on the idea of reaching
consensus among those who have power and inuence [9,125,138].
This governance style is part of a democratic framework where the
legislative branch is highly inuential, and multiple parties play key
roles in setting the political agenda. Powerful economic actors and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) are usually consulted to incorpo-
rate and contain potential conicts and avoid dissent early on. Histori-
cally, most negotiations among powerful players occurred behind closed
doors, with results communicated to the media and the public afterward
[139]. However, the rise of NGOs and social media has made negotia-
tions more transparent, turning consensus-seeking into a public affair
[140]. A vote in parliament often symbolizes what has already been
negotiated. The executive branch is limited in its discretionary power
but remains the ofcial representative of governmental action [141].
If powerful players are convinced that an energy transition is inevi-
table, they may bring this topic to the table to negotiate policies that
promote their goals. However, consensus-seeking will often stall be-
tween those pushing for immediate action and those prioritizing other
agenda items [138]. Collaborative governance systems rarely initiate
radical actions unless these are deemed unavoidable by all parties, as
seen with responses to crises like COVID-19. Ambitious sustainability
policies are often postponed as urgent issues take precedence.
Collaborative governance is highly inclusive of major stakeholders
within the “insider club” but tends to keep other actors at a distance [9,
p.360]. Public forums like planning cells, citizens' forums, and assem-
blies are used to gauge the concerns and desires of various publics,
intending to make insiders more responsive to outsider needs. However,
this is not meant to give non-organized citizens more power over po-
litical decision-making. The best democratic outcome is for decision-
makers to hear informed positions representing the population [142].
This collaborative prototype has been strong in Scandinavian coun-
tries, Austria, Luxembourg, and parts of Germany [15,17,143,144].
Many European countries have shifted towards reexive or inclusive
policy styles while retaining collaborative characteristics. Outside
Europe, Japan and other East Asian democracies are following the
collaborative approach to seeking consensual policies [145,146].
In collaborative governance, participation in energy transitions
mainly takes place through information or consultation [147]. Town
hall meetings, citizen forums, and dialogue formats are often used by
planning and local authorities to explain policies and collect limited
feedback [333]. Co-designing or co-creating policies typically involves
stakeholders from the “insider club” negotiating and testing policy
proposals [9]. Direct citizen involvement through grassroots initiatives
or random selection in assemblies or juries is rare and limited to non-
core interests [336].
In Europe, legal requirements mandate public hearings or inquiries
to address public concerns and explain proposed policies [140]. Stake-
holders and citizens provide input on urban and infrastructure de-
velopments, but the input is formalized and not necessarily considered
in further planning [148]. Concerns not properly addressed may lead
stakeholders to court, provided procedural violations are proven.
Hearings often represent symbolic involvement rather than substantial
inuence [149]. For example, citizens and stakeholders have had min-
imal success in Germany in opposing wind power siting [150]. This can
lead to local conicts and protests when community needs and prefer-
ences are ignored, violating recognition justice and perceived demo-
cratic legitimacy.
Collaborative governance refers to decision-making where multiple
stakeholders, including government agencies, private sector actors,
NGOs, and communities, work together to achieve common goals [142].
In energy transitions, collaborative governance facilitates policy devel-
opment by leveraging diverse participants' strengths and resources
[151]. We will now present some examples of collaborative energy
governance based on case studies from Denmark, the Baltic Sea Region,
France, Austria, Indonesia, Australia, South Korea and Austin (Texas).
Denmark has pioneered a collaborative approach which is renowned for
its widely supported multi-actor transition towards renewable energy,
particularly wind power [332]. The Danish government actively in-
volves various stakeholders in energy planning, encouraging public
participation and community ownership of renewable energy projects
[334,335,337–339]. This approach has fostered widespread acceptance
of renewable energy initiatives, leading to Denmark becoming a global
leader in wind energy [152–154]. Through policies that support
collaborative and cooperative ownership models, local communities can
invest in and benet directly from renewable energy developments. This
ensures that the economic benets are distributed more evenly among
residents, thus fostering social equity [210–214]. Co-creation strategies
have been increasingly adopted in Denmark to ensure that energy
transitions are not solely technocratic but incorporate local knowledge
and social needs. Sillak et al. argue that co-creation processes such as
those used in Sønderborg, Denmark, help foster collaboration between
local governments, industry, and communities by involving all stake-
holders in the design, implementation, and evaluation phases of energy
transitions [201]. This approach encourages social learning and the
acquisition of resources while enhancing the overall acceptability and
success of these initiatives.
In energy transitions, the involvement of multiple stakeholders
across sectors and scales is essential, as it ensures that diverse perspec-
tives are considered and that the process is more inclusive and widely
supported. This collaborative governance approach fosters shared
ownership of the transition, which in turn strengthens the commitment
of all parties involved. For instance, the Baltic Sea Region’s AREA 21
project highlights the importance of inclusivity and stakeholder
collaboration at the district level, and of involving public authorities,
energy utilities, property owners, and citizens to create energy-efcient
urban districts [340]. Similarly, in France, efforts to decentralize wind
energy development demonstrate how collaborative governance be-
tween local and national authorities can drive renewable energy ini-
tiatives, despite challenges posed by centralized energy and landscape
policies [341–343]. Austria’s “energy regions,” such as the Murau dis-
trict, showcase another example where regional discourses and collab-
orative networks built around renewable energy have led to both socio-
technical innovation and economic revitalization [344]. Collaborative
governance plays a critical role in addressing the complex challenges of
renewable energy transitions, particularly in regions where multiple
stakeholders are involved. In Indonesia, for example, the collaborative
efforts between the regional government, the State Electricity Company
(PLN), and the biogas power plant in Riau Province demonstrate the
potential of such partnerships to address local energy needs through
renewable sources like biogas from palm oil waste [345]. However, the
collaboration faces signicant challenges due to regulatory shifts and
jurisdictional changes, which have complicated the management of
energy projects at the local level. In Australia, deliberative collaborative
governance (DCG) has proven successful in integrating sustainability
concerns into urban planning. Initiatives in Western Australia, such as
the “Dialogue with the City,” have shown how engaging citizens in
decision-making processes can lead to more sustainable urban planning
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
8
outcomes, as seen in efforts to reduce urban sprawl in Perth [346]. These
cases highlight how collaborative governance, when implemented
effectively, can bridge the gap between local communities and govern-
mental institutions to foster more inclusive and just energy solutions
[347]. South Korea has engaged local communities and various stake-
holders in collaborative projects, particularly as part of renewable en-
ergy initiatives, to foster a more democratic energy transition. For
instance, there have been efforts to decentralize energy governance by
allowing local governments and citizen groups to participate in solar and
wind energy projects [348]. However, some problematic challenges
remain, such as conicts and distrust between stakeholders and
powerful incumbents in the energy sector as well as policy uncertainties
that negatively affect investment decisions, which hinder the full reali-
zation of collaborative governance.
In the United States, the city of Austin, Texas exemplies collabo-
rative governance through its community-driven energy plan. Austin
Energy, the city's municipally-owned utility, actively engages with the
community to develop and implement its energy transition strategy.
Through public consultations and stakeholder meetings, Austin Energy
has set ambitious renewable energy goals and developed innovative
programs to support energy efciency and the adoption of solar power.
This collaborative approach has helped Austin become a leader in
renewable energy among US cities [156–158].
Collaborative governance in energy transitions offers advantages,
such as integrating diverse perspectives, fostering innovation, and
enhancing transparency and accountability [151,345,346,371]. How-
ever, challenges include coordinating multiple stakeholders with
differing priorities, ensuring equitable participation, and reaching
consensus without diluting policies [142,148,152,344]. Despite these
challenges, collaborative governance plays a vital role in achieving
successful energy transitions by ensuring equitable and sustainable
outcomes through effective coordination, inclusive participation, and
shared objectives.
4.5. The reective governance prototype (IV)
The reective prototype emphasizes the quality of political decision-
making, striving to align with the ideals of deliberative democracy
[5,6,74,75,159,160]. This approach is rooted in the belief that gover-
nance should provide opportunities for all parties to exchange ideas,
arguments, and beliefs in a fair and open discourse. When these rules are
followed, a true consensus or dissent may emerge that includes all ar-
guments and offers a competent and fair resolution [9, p.294f]. Unlike
the collaborative model, the reective prototype invites participation
not only from powerful, organized actors but also from any citizen who
can provide a valid argument or is affected by a decision.
Reective governance emphasizes controlling undue lobbying in-
uences, power plays, and partial interests, ensuring that debates are
governed by fairness and competence [66,67,161]. Ideally, this
competitive discourse leads to socially just solutions, where consensus
represents the best rational and most accepted resolution for all parties
involved [6,162]. However, critical reection on this ideal reveals
several constraints. The selection of participants inuences the discourse
outcome; limited participation may lead to a consensus that excludes
broader interests [163,164]. Power hierarchies often overrule rational
arguments [165,166], and negotiating trade-offs implies shared value
preferences, which is neither realistic nor desirable [118]. Additionally,
arguments beyond rational reasoning may hold signicance for some
participants but less for others [167].
Advocates of deliberative policymaking suggest alternative forms of
closure, such as advocacy or discursive coalitions and agonistic ex-
changes [168–171]. Dryzek & Niemeyer propose seeking a “meta-
consensus” that acknowledges diverse positions and respects dissenting
views [172]. This can lead to multiple valid solutions or a majority vote
to nd the most acceptable option. Reective governance can drive
energy transition policies if arguments are fairly considered [33],
making climate protection and energy transitions top priorities in
deliberative contexts ([124], review in [173]). However, policies often
remain rhetorical, with limited impact on implementation [174–176].
Reective systems may struggle with the assumption that verbal
commitments translate into action. The term “speech acts” suggests that
verbal and factual behavior may not align, as seen with Germany's
heating act, where intentions clashed with nancial implications
[177,178]. Reective governance excels in verbal agreements but faces
challenges in implementation. Participation in reective systems in-
volves stakeholder and citizen input to ensure representation. Although
parliamentary debates once sufced, skepticism over their breadth has
led to additional participatory processes like round tables and consensus
conferences [2,63,179–181]. These have broadened argumentation but
have not closed the gap between consensus and action.
Reective governance is evident in countries like Italy, France,
Ireland, and Spain [124], many US states, Taiwan, and Australia
[182–184]. Latin American countries, including Peru and Brazil under
Lula, also embrace deliberative elements [185]. However, despite
respected cultures of deliberation, public discourse spaces are often
limited or formalized, constraining true planning alternatives
[186–188]. This experimental democracy often leads to unfullled
promises that populist movements exploit [108].
Reective governance in energy transitions emphasizes learning,
adaptation, and reexivity to address complex challenges [349]. It in-
volves continuously evaluating and adjusting policies based on new
insights and societal needs, fostering exibility and responsiveness. In
the following, we will discuss some examples of reective energy
governance in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and at the city and
local level including examples from Austria, Sweden, US cities, and
Liverpool (UK).
Although Germany’s Energiewende is strongly inuenced by a coop-
erative style of governance, there are increasingly elements of reective
governance included in the process of policy generation and imple-
mentation [353–357]. Germany’s energy transition strategy pursues an
adaptive policy approach, which is designed to be responsive to
changing circumstances and informed by continuous evaluation and
stakeholder feedback [350]. The German government regularly reviews
and updates its renewable energy policies, incorporating lessons learned
from implementation experiences and technological advancements
[352,358]. The process is iterative and adaptive, as policies are
continuously reassessed based on feedback from stakeholders, techno-
logical advances, and social changes [351]. This reective approach
allows Germany to adjust its strategies to meet renewable energy targets
while addressing challenges such as grid integration and market design
[189].
The Netherlands provides possibly the most prominent example of
reective governance in its approach to the energy transition, including
a transition management framework [359–361,364,367,368]. This
approach integrates multi-actor collaboration and long-term strategic
visioning while being adaptable in the short term [362,365,372]. Dutch
policymakers have recognized the need to involve various stakeholders
in the energy transition process, creating “transition arenas” where
public, private, and civil society actors collaborate to develop sustain-
able energy pathways [351]. A good example is the “Sustainable Rijn-
mond” project, which focuses on the energy transition in an industrial
region through a combination of local innovation and stakeholder
participation [351,370]. The Dutch energy transition is also organized
regionally through the Regional Energy Strategies (RES), which focus on
decentralized, region-specic energy solutions including a exible and
local focus [366,367].
In this case, the reective approach is strongly tied to mechanisms of
collaborative governance [369,363,373,374]. The Dutch “Energy
Agreement for Sustainable Growth,” signed in 2013, is a product of
negotiations involving over 40 stakeholders, including government
bodies, industry representatives, trade unions, and environmental or-
ganizations [351]. This agreement outlines specic targets for
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
9
renewable energy, energy efciency, and carbon emissions reduction,
and its collaborative nature ensures that all parties have a stake in its
success. The involvement of diverse stakeholders has helped create a
stable and predictable policy environment that is conducive to invest-
ment in renewable energy [155]. However, despite the inclusive nature
of these efforts, socio-spatial inequalities persist, as not all citizens are
able to participate equally in local energy transitions, limiting access to
the benets of renewable energy initiatives, particularly in marginalized
or lower-income communities [375,376].
In the United Kingdom, reective governance is evident in the gov-
ernment's approach to integrating renewable energy into the electricity
grid. The UK has adopted a dynamic regulatory framework that en-
courages innovation and experimentation with new technologies and
business models. For example, the UK's regulatory sandbox initiative
allows energy companies to test new products and services in a
controlled environment, providing valuable insights into their potential
impact and scalability. This reective approach helps the UK adapt its
energy policies to accommodate emerging technologies and market
trends [190]. The European Union (EU) also exemplies reective
governance through its iterative approach to climate and energy policy.
The EU's energy transition strategy is guided by the principle of
“learning by doing,” which involves continuously rening policies based
on implementation experiences and stakeholder feedback. This
approach is evident in the EU's periodic revision of its Renewable Energy
Directive and Emissions Trading System, which are adjusted to reect
new scientic ndings and technological developments. By fostering a
culture of reection and adaptation, the EU aims to achieve a more
resilient and effective energy transition [191].
Reective governance in energy transitions, particularly at the local
level in cities, municipalities, and rural areas, emphasizes the need for
adaptable, inclusive, and participatory approaches that engage diverse
stakeholders [350,378–382]. At the local level, initiatives such as Local
Energy Communities (LECs) demonstrate the potential for bottom-up
governance models that promote sustainable development and social
innovation. Otamendi-Irizar et al. highlight how LECs in European cities
act as drivers of local transformation, engaging communities to co-
create solutions for energy production and distribution [383]. By
involving local stakeholders and integrating sustainability goals, LECs
not only address energy needs but also promote wider social and eco-
nomic benets, such as job creation, environmental conservation, and
public space improvements.
In urban areas, the concept of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs)
highlights the importance of community engagement and adaptive
systems for long-term sustainability. For example, Derkenbaeva et al.
emphasize that PEDs contribute to energy transitions by focusing on
renewable energy production and energy efciency while considering
local social and environmental contexts [384]. Moreover, the inclusion
of multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes enhances the
exibility and resilience of urban energy systems. Cities in Sweden, such
as Stockholm and Gothenburg, are pioneering reective governance in
urban energy transitions [385,386]. With goals to become fossil fuel-free
by 2040, these cities are engaging in multi-actor governance frame-
works, involving local authorities, businesses, and civil society in
collaborative decision-making processes [387]. The reective gover-
nance approach in Swedish cities includes continuous learning and
adaptation, in which policies are regularly reassessed to incorporate new
technological advancements and societal needs [388,389].
In rural and smaller municipalities, similar approaches are necessary
but require tailored governance models [390]. Hoicka et al. explore the
signicance of renewable energy communities (RECs) in decentralizing
energy production, empowering local actors, and promoting equitable
energy access [391]. Such models of co-governance ensure that energy
transitions are inclusive, addressing the specic needs of rural pop-
ulations that might otherwise be marginalized. Naumann and Rudolph
argue that energy projects in rural areas can lead to contestations over
land use, benet distribution, and local participation [392]. This calls
for governance models that prioritize procedural justice and ensure that
rural communities have a meaningful role in decision-making
[393–402]. In Austria, reective governance is practiced through
regional energy collaborations, such as in the region of Styria [336,403].
Local governments, businesses, and NGOs collaborate to promote
renewable energy projects tailored to the region’s specic needs
[404,405]. This decentralized approach ensures that the energy transi-
tion policies are adaptable to local socio-economic and environmental
contexts [406]. Reective governance here focuses on regular policy
evaluations and adjustments, aligning local needs with national energy
goals [407]. Further examples can be found in rural Italy, Indonesia, and
Australia [408].
In many cases, renewable energy systems have been shown to
signicantly benet low-income and socioeconomically deprived com-
munities, but they require careful, reective governance to avoid
exacerbating inequalities. Axon and Morrissey highlight that such
transitions, if not managed in an anticipative and reective way, can
have unintended consequences, as seen in the case of a biomass energy
project in Liverpool, where residents faced increased energy costs and
felt excluded from the decision-making process [409]. Similarly, Beau-
champet and Walsh argue that for gas-free transitions in the
Netherlands, reective governance plays a critical role, and engaging
citizens in decision-making is crucial to ensure a just and effective
transition [410]. It has been shown that proactive town leadership and
the presence of “policy champions” signicantly contribute to successful
energy transitions at the local level [411–414]. In US municipalities,
policy entrepreneurs play a vital role in aligning clean energy initiatives
with local socio-economic conditions, driving community engagement,
and fostering broad support for renewable energy projects [415,416].
Thus, the most signicant advantage of reective governance lies in the
capability of combining urban strategies, such as PEDs, with local-level
leadership and participatory governance models to ensure energy tran-
sitions are equitable and sustainable across various regions [417–424].
Reective governance offers several advantages, such as proactive
responses to challenges, enhanced policy effectiveness, and stakeholder
engagement. It fosters innovation through experimentation and adap-
tation. However, challenges include the complexity of continuous
evaluation, the need for effective feedback mechanisms, and balancing
exibility with market stability. Reective governance plays a crucial
role in facilitating energy transitions, enhancing policy resilience and
effectiveness. While challenges exist, benets like increased respon-
siveness and inclusivity make it a valuable strategy for successful energy
transitions. Effective reective governance requires robust evaluation
mechanisms, stakeholder participation, and a commitment to contin-
uous learning and adaptation.
Thus, reective governance in energy transitions is crucial for
managing the uncertainties, conicts, and long-term goals associated
with sustainability. The Netherlands, Austria, Germany, the UK and
Sweden, as well as many cities and regions all over the world, provide
diverse examples of how adaptive, participatory, and iterative gover-
nance processes can guide energy transitions at national, regional, and
local levels. Although challenges remain – particularly when it comes to
balancing the inuence of powerful incumbents with the need for
innovation – the reective governance approach enables societies to
navigate the complexities of transitioning to a sustainable energy future.
4.6. The inclusive governance prototype (V)
The inclusive or participatory governance prototype is built on the
belief that direct participation from all constituencies leads to more
effective, fair, and resilient policies [87,192]. This governance style
provides opportunities for direct participatory measures such as refer-
enda, as well as indirect and informal methods like citizen assemblies
and round tables. While advocates of inclusive democracy maintain that
collectively binding decisions should be passed by parliaments rather
than ad-hoc groups [193,194], local issues can be resolved directly by
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
10
those affected, with special conicts addressed through popular votes or
informal processes. Unlike the reective prototype, which emphasizes
fair deliberation, the inclusive model focuses on gathering a represen-
tative sample of people empowered to make or prepare collectively
binding decisions [195]. The approach is grounded in the idea that if
real public representation is achieved, all arguments and viewpoints will
be considered, and the outcomes will resonate with public consensus on
acceptable compromises [196].
In the context of energy transitions, inclusive governance is effective
if relevant actors agree on the urgency of action. However, there is no
guarantee that open discourse will favor ambitious energy transition
policies ([194,197], see also [198–200]). Strong consensus may weaken
if transitions demand too much effort, potentially leading to chaos.
Nonetheless, inclusive governance gives condence that agreed-upon
policies will be implemented. The goal is not to nd the best solution
but to decide on sustainable or agreeable actions.
The inclusive governance model emphasizes broad participation,
including formats such as living labs where people voluntarily make
changes within their communities [201]. The involvement of non-
organized actors is welcomed, adding legitimacy to policymaking. Ele-
ments of inclusive governance can be found in countries like
Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and some US states, such as Massa-
chusetts [202–204]. Direct participation formats like referenda are
popular because they promise direct political inuence [205–207].
However, referenda in Switzerland and other democracies often reect
powerful societal actors and are reduced to yes-no options [208].
Effective direct democracy requires extensive information campaigns
and informal deliberations [63]. Without these, referenda can increase
polarization and manipulation, undermining democratic legitimacy
[209].
Inclusive governance in energy transitions emphasizes the repre-
sentation of diverse stakeholders, including marginalized groups. This
approach ensures equitable sharing of energy transition benets and
challenges, addressing social justice by engaging communities that are
often excluded from traditional policymaking.
The following presents selected examples of forms of inclusive en-
ergy governance in Canada, South Africa, the state of Massachusetts
(US), Ireland, Indonesia, and Taiwan.
Inclusive governance is more prominent and popular on the local and
regional level than on the national level. One prominent example is
Canada, inclusive governance is evident in the country’s efforts to
involve Indigenous communities in energy transition initiatives.
Recognizing the historical marginalization of Indigenous peoples, the
Canadian government has prioritized partnerships with Indigenous
communities to develop renewable energy projects on their lands. These
partnerships provide opportunities for Indigenous groups to lead and
participate in energy projects, thereby promoting economic develop-
ment and energy sovereignty. This inclusive approach acknowledges the
rights and knowledge of Indigenous peoples, contributing to more
equitable and sustainable energy transitions [215]. South Africa pro-
vides another example of inclusive governance in its approach to
addressing energy poverty and inequality. The South African govern-
ment has implemented policies aimed at expanding access to affordable
and sustainable energy for low-income and rural communities. Initia-
tives such as the Integrated National Electrication Programme (INEP)
and the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement
Programme (REIPPPP) are designed to improve energy access while
promoting local economic development and job creation. These pro-
grams emphasize the importance of inclusivity by involving local
stakeholders in decision-making processes and ensuring that disadvan-
taged communities benet from energy transitions [216].
Strategies of inclusive governance in Massachusetts’ clean energy
transition emphasize the importance of participation, particularly for
marginalized communities, in shaping policies that promote clean en-
ergy and climate action in order to ensure that the benets of the clean
energy transition, such as job creation and energy savings, are equitably
distributed [425,426]. The 2021 Climate Policy Act and subsequent
clean energy plans aim for net-zero emissions by 2050, focusing on
including historically excluded groups in decision-making processes.
The state’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 highlights
the involvement of stakeholders through public meetings and the
Climate Justice Work Group, ensuring that low-income and environ-
mental justice communities benet from climate policies [427]. Addi-
tionally, initiatives like offshore wind energy expansion prioritize
workforce development and economic inclusion, particularly for low-
income and minority communities. The Climate Jobs Roadmap for
Massachusetts outlines the importance of prioritizing union jobs and
strong labor standards to ensure that workers from underrepresented
groups can access high-quality careers in the clean energy sector. It
stresses the importance of addressing racial and economic inequality,
particularly through initiatives that expand access to well-paid jobs and
affordable, energy-efcient housing ([428]; see also the ReImagine
Appalachia campaign, which addresses these issues and claims [429]).
Moreover, the roadmap highlights the urgency of scaling retrot pro-
grams for buildings to reduce emissions while ensuring transparency
and equitable access, especially for low-income communities.
Inclusive energy governance in Ireland focuses on engaging multiple
stakeholders, such as policymakers, communities, and local institutions,
to shape sustainable energy transitions. Ireland’s approach recognizes
the importance of integrating non-energy policies, such as health, edu-
cation, and work, into energy governance to inuence energy demand
and sustainability behaviors [430]. The inclusion of social practices,
health guidelines, and educational programs emphasizes the role of
everyday practices in shaping energy consumption [431]. For instance,
Irish policies have been designed to nudge consumer choices and pro-
mote energy-efcient practices, integrating these measures into broader
societal contexts [432]. Reecting on the limitations of traditional ap-
proaches, Ireland’s model aims to reduce demand through a combina-
tion of technological efciency and behavioral change, while also
considering socio-economic factors that inuence individual and com-
munity behaviors. Through inclusive energy governance, Ireland aims to
address energy-related CO2 emissions and meet its EU climate targets by
embedding energy policies into everyday life, ensuring broad societal
participation. The application of energy policies, such as recycling
programs and water conservation, demonstrates how Ireland involves its
citizens in creating a sustainable future [433].
In Indonesia’s energy transition, strategies of inclusive governance
are regarded as crucial to addressing the socio-political and economic
disparities faced by vulnerable groups [434–436], such as local com-
munities reliant on fossil fuels, informal workers, and Indigenous pop-
ulations [437,438]. The current energy transition policies in Indonesia,
while targeting decarbonization and renewable energy growth, often fail
to incorporate the voices of these marginalized communities effectively
[439–442]. The exclusion of these groups from decision-making pro-
cesses has resulted in a lack of trust and support for energy policies
[408,443]. For example, coal-dependent regions face economic risks due
to job losses and reduced local revenues as Indonesia transitions away
from coal [444,445]. Additionally, Indigenous communities often
struggle with securing land rights, facing displacement due to large-
scale renewable energy projects like biofuel plantations and hydro-
power plants [438,446].
In Taiwan, the governance of Indigenous territories during energy
transitions has showcased how deliberative democracy and activism can
contribute to energy justice [447]. Indigenous groups, such as those
opposing solar projects on their lands, have engaged in a dual deliber-
ative system where local governance interacts with national policy-
making [448]. This system emphasizes the importance of
communication and collaboration between Indigenous communities and
government bodies, allowing for the inclusion of marginalized voices in
energy governance [447]. Similarly, in Australia, community renewable
energy projects such as those in Northern Rivers demonstrate how local
initiatives can foster governance structures that integrate citizen
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
11
participation, local government support, and innovative nancing
models [347,449]. Projects like the Lismore Community Solar Initiative
and Enova Energy reect the growing trend of communities taking an
active role in shaping their energy futures through a combination of
inclusive and collaborative governance [449]. These examples illustrate
the potential of decentralized and inclusive governance models to pro-
mote sustainable energy transitions even in high-carbon regimes like
Taiwan [450–454].
Inclusive governance offers advantages such as enhanced policy
legitimacy, social cohesion, transparency, and innovation. It addresses
social and economic disparities by incorporating diverse perspectives
and knowledge systems. However, challenges include facilitating
meaningful participation, overcoming systemic barriers for marginal-
ized groups, and balancing competing interests. Inclusive governance
plays a vital role in equitable and sustainable energy transitions by
ensuring diverse stakeholder involvement. Examples from many coun-
tries, including Canada, Indonesia, Ireland, South Africa and Taiwan, as
well as the specic case of Massachusetts, show how inclusivity pro-
motes social justice, economic development, and energy access. Despite
challenges, the benets of inclusivity, such as legitimacy and innova-
tion, make it a valuable strategy for successful energy transitions.
Effective inclusive governance requires empowering marginalized
communities, fostering dialogue, and addressing systemic participation
barriers.
The following table summarizes the main features of these ve
governance styles (see Table 3).
5. Discussion and synopsis: The need for hybrid styles of energy
transition governance
5.1. Synopsis of the benets and shortcomings of each policy style
Our analysis demonstrated that none of the ve prototypes or styles
of democratic governance abstracted from the literature provide an
optimal solution for promoting an ambitious energy transition process
towards renewable and non-fossil energy sources (cf. [217]). The auto-
cratic style of governance is the least likely to be effective in this direction
and will not include citizen or stakeholder participation except for
symbolic reasons to promote the regime. Within the adversarial style,
pursuit of an energy transition depends on the strategic outlook of each
party and whether ambitious policies will improve their position vis-
`
a-vis the competing party. So far, there is little evidence that this kind of
strategic advantage can be maintained over time to effect meaningful
change. In the US and the UK, climate protection has been a rallying
topic for at least one of the competing parties (Democrats and Labour),
but even this has lost momentum over time (for the US: [218], for the
UK: [189,219–222]).
The collaborative style of governance is more likely to become serious
about climate policies but tends to slow down transition efforts so as not
to jeopardize cooperation. The reective style is likely to produce high
commitment but may lack corresponding actions. Finally, the inclusive
style of governance may promise energy justice, but it is unpredictable
and reliant on the preferences of the actors involved. Given the volatility
of these preferences over time, inconsistencies are likely to evolve.
These conclusions point to the need for a hybrid style of governance
based on collaboration but enriched by reective and inclusive elements
that overcome the rigidity of the collaborative prototype and add
deliberative elements and inclusion opportunities.
How might a mixture of specic styles and modes of participation
formats work? In comparing the prototypes, we assumed, rst, that the
more inclusive styles of governance (collaborative, inclusive, reective)
could be distinguished from the more elitist styles (autocratic, adver-
sarial) (see Table 2). Second, we concluded that the collaborative, in-
clusive, and reective governance styles offer the greatest opportunities
and best conditions for initiating and implementing participatory pro-
cesses, but each differs signicantly in terms of the input and throughput
dimensions of democratic legitimacy. The collaborative style empha-
sizes joint decision-making by all relevant parties. This is based on the
ideal of legitimacy by procedure rather than by results (throughput
legitimacy). It provides ample opportunities for co-governance for those
who are part of the insiders' club [223].
The reective style builds on the quality of arguments that would
lead to a “good” decision. It emphasizes the output dimension of dem-
ocratic legitimacy. If it is not compromised by power interventions or
unfair performance by moderators and external pressures, it can result in
a high quality of outcome in terms of effective policymaking, efcient
procedures, and fair distribution of burdens and benets.
Finally, the inclusive style places the greatest emphasis on the broad
and extensive representation of all parts of society, making it the best
approach for achieving input legitimacy. In the inclusive policy style,
each individual ideally has the right to co-determine policymaking
within the frame of the respective decision-making format (i.e. refer-
endum, citizens' assemblies, etc.).
If we consider the real-world conditions of energy transition pro-
cedures and the constraints on decision-making processes, the three
most responsive styles, i.e. collaborative, reective and inclusive, may
still fail because time pressures, diversity of opinions and values, and
political maneuvering may impede a fair and deliberative inclusion of
Table 3
Summary of governance prototypes with emphasis on public participation.
Governance
Prototype
Leadership and Decision-Making Policymaking Style Participation Procedures Implementation of Sustainability Policies
Autocratic
Governance
Characterized by a dominant
political leader and ruling party
Regular elections held, but the leader
seeks to limit opposition and control
policymaking
Limited political participation,
with leaders relying on symbolic
forms of involvement
Unlikely to prioritize or effectively
implement sustainable energy transition
policies
Adversarial
Governance
Involves two competing parties
seeking public support
Policies may change depending on
which party is in power
Emphasizes showcase
participation to mobilize support
for the ruling party's agenda
Climate policies may be inuenced by
strategic considerations rather than long-
term commitment to sustainability
Collaborative
Governance
Focuses on consensus-building
among inuential stakeholders,
often behind closed doors
Economic actors and NGOs are
consulted to contain and resolve
conicts early in the decision-making
process
Inclusive for major stakeholders
but excludes new initiatives and
non-organized citizens
Tends to prioritize more urgent issues over
ambitious sustainability policies
Reective
Governance
Emphasizes quality decision-
making through deliberation
Aims for open and fair discourse, with
a focus on competent argumentation
Often results in verbal
commitments to sustainability
policies
Implementation of policies may be slow or
incomplete, and verbal commitments may
not translate into practical action
Inclusive
Governance
Supports direct participation of
all parts of society
Provides ample opportunities for
various participatory measures,
including referenda
Aims to empower representative
samples of citizens to make
collectively binding decisions
Effectiveness depends on convincing all
relevant actors of the necessity for
immediate action
Policymaking tends to be inconsistent
depending on changing preferences of the
electorate
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
12
stakeholders and the affected public. This is even more true for the top-
down authoritarian and adversarial styles. Many studies have shown
that top-down styles increase dissatisfaction and boost local opposition
and protests [6,19,42,105,224–226].
5.2. Proposal for a new “hybrid” policy style
Navigating the complexities of energy policymaking and deciding on
often painful trade-offs between conicting objectives calls for a de-
parture from conventional approaches. Hybrid governance in energy
transitions is an emerging approach that seeks to navigate these com-
plexities by integrating both top-down and bottom-up processes. It re-
quires a shift from a supranational or national governance level to a
balanced combination of centralized directives that respect planetary
boundaries and incorporate global environmental, economic and social
megatrends, and community-level engagement. Only in this way can we
ensure global conditions and constraints are taken into account, while
the most locally suitable policies and measures are developed at the
community level [12,227]. By shifting focus towards community sov-
ereignty, this governance style prioritizes decision-making at the com-
munity level in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, which
advocates for decisions to be made as close as possible to the citizens
they affect [228].
Community sovereignty is the primary driver for energy transitions,
but it is informed by knowledge about planetary boundaries and con-
tained by minimizing external effects on global commons. In conjunc-
tion with a reective and inclusive governance approach, community-
centered governance that builds on local initiatives may enhance the
level of agency and efcacy for citizens in their own life-world (see for
example a series of community-based case studies in [229]). The policy
focus needs to shift to the pivotal role of individual experiences in
shaping a community's living conditions. Community-based activities,
enhanced by an inclusive and bottom-up style of participation, hold the
key to unlocking the hidden potential of inclusion, diversity, and
collaboration [230].
The rst step in this direction involves bottom-up activities to
establish deliberative discourses within the community or regional level
[231,232]. Via such localized discourses, issues of social justice, energy
needs, ecological impacts, and sustainable development can be
addressed. Such an approach will also increase and nurture the need for
social recognition for stakeholders and citizens by public authorities.
One example of hybrid governance combined with bottom-up activities
can be seen in the development of community energy projects in Scot-
land. Here, local communities have been empowered to take ownership
of renewable energy projects, such as wind and hydroelectric schemes.
The Scottish government supports these initiatives by providing
frameworks and nancial assistance, allowing communities to benet
directly from the energy transition. This combination of government
support and community initiative exemplies how top-down and
bottom-up approaches can be effectively integrated [233].
The second step involves more exible and inclusive formats for
stakeholder and public participation, contributing to procedural justice
[234]. This requires the combination of stakeholder round tables with
citizen assemblies or forums in which randomly selected citizens
represent the perspectives of the non-organized persons who will be
affected by the decision being considered [235,236]. In addition, the
discourse itself should be inspired by the ideal of deliberative co-
creation, leaving enough space for participants to nd new and more
adequate solutions and to discuss the unavoidable trade-offs between
different policy options. In Germany, the Energiewende has been sup-
ported by new formats of hybrid governance. A highly promising format
is the co-creative development of innovative tools in living labs, since
these involve the active promotion and integration of real-world in-
terventions that are imperative for the success of an energy transition
[234]. Such co-creative approaches foster a sense of ownership and
shared responsibility among the affected parties, mitigating conicts in
the transition process and securing procedural as well as recognition
justice. Recognition justice also plays a pivotal role in transition efforts.
Joint sense-making, listening to multiple preferences, including place
attachments and identities, and sincere efforts to include different vie-
points without losing the need for a common agreement can be
accomplished more effectively on the local and regional level than in
predominantly top-down governance approaches. While national pol-
icies set ambitious targets for renewable energy deployment, the
implementation occurs predominantly at the regional and local level.
This involves local governments and communities in planning and
decision-making processes, enabling them to tailor solutions to their
specic needs and conditions. Community-led projects, such as local
energy cooperatives, are supported by federal policies that encourage
decentralized energy generation and consumption [237–244].
The third step involves the sharing of benets with the local com-
munity [131,245]. This is a powerful mechanism to promote distributive
justice. By receiving an equitable distribution of benets arising from
energy projects, the potential victims of infrastructure planning become
owners of an infrastructure that gives them access to benets and de-
livers additional personal agency [455]. Then, with every turn of a wind
generator, local residents can watch their earnings grow. Shared benets
may be nancial, symbolic, or substantive. The main point is to
empower people to be both designers and beneciaries of the envisioned
energy transition. This not only addresses community self-governance,
but it also establishes a framework for long-term community
engagement.
The fourth and nal step is to link the communities to a larger
concept of the common good and the obligation to remain within
planetary boundaries so that community egoism at the expense of other
communities is discouraged [246,247]. The Netherlands launched an
initiative that links the local with the national and global level. It is
called: “Energy Agreement for Sustainable Growth,” and involves a
broad coalition of stakeholders, including government agencies, busi-
nesses representatives, trade unions, and environmental organizations
[456]. During their meeting the are mandated to respect planetary
boundaries and to provide a productive interface for the cooperation
between regional, national, and supranational governance levels for
designing and sustainable energy polices. At the same time, the initiative
is requested to adjust the outcomes of one community-driven discourse
to the outcomes of other communities to ensure consistency and
coherence. The Dutch model emphasizes the importance of stakeholder
engagement and the integration of diverse perspectives in crafting en-
ergy policies that are both ambitious and locally adaptable [249].
The best way to implement such a close link between vertical
governance levels is to have representatives of each community (elected
ofcials as well as discourse members) meet at the next higher gover-
nance levels with public ofcials and modify their plans so that they best
serve the interests and values of all communities [248]. This agreement
facilitates a collaborative approach to energy transitions, blending na-
tional policy objectives with local initiatives.
This approach balances bottom-up and top-down policymaking
while ensuring adherence to the core principles of democratic policy-
making. Hybrid governance approaches offer several benets in energy
transitions. The power of parliaments is not compromised, but the pre-
decision phase is enriched by deliberative processes to inform policy-
makers and to provide feedback about public preferences to the
decision-making authorities [5,6]. First, hybrid approaches promote
inclusivity and diversity by actively involving local communities and
stakeholders in decision-making processes. This enhances the legitimacy
and acceptance of energy policies, as citizens are more likely to support
initiatives they have helped shape. In addition, the subsidiarity principle
has been established as a legally prescribed mode of multi-level gover-
nance in the EU [250]. Hybrid governance fosters innovation by
allowing local experimentation and adaptation of energy solutions,
which can then be scaled up or shared as best practices across regions.
We foresee no principal argument why this new policy style could not be
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
13
extended to all countries with a democratic governance system and an
openness for direct input by stakeholders and the public. Additionally,
this approach helps balance competing interests and objectives,
ensuring that social justice, ecological impacts, and energy needs are
considered holistically.
This new style of governance can be seen as a hybrid of reective and
inclusive styles focused on decentralized decision-making and commu-
nity empowerment. However, there are challenges associated with
hybrid governance. One major challenge is coordinating actions across
multiple governance levels and ensuring coherence between national
and local policies. In earlier publications, one of the authors has labeled
this style “mediative” because it provides bridges between citizens and
the community, between communities and the state, and between states
and the European Union [94]. Effective communication channels and
mechanisms for collaboration are essential to address potential conicts
and align efforts. In terms of procedure, a mediative style would include
four distinct components. First, a thorough understanding of the local
and regional context is paramount, as it lays the groundwork for effec-
tive interventions and for setting the boundaries for the various dis-
courses. Second, identifying, testing, and combining different formats
that include experts, organized stakeholders, and non-organized citizens
creates the deliberative space required for an effective and fair repre-
sentation at the community level [181,235]. Additionally, there is a
need to ensure that local communities have the capacity and resources
to participate effectively in energy transitions, which may require tar-
geted support and capacity-building initiatives. The emphasis here is on
open and deliberative spaces created through physical and digital plat-
forms. Evaluating and testing new co-creative formats, supported by
digital technologies, further strengthens the quality and resilience of
community discourses.
Third, to be effective in the energy transition and to handle conicts
constructively, those deliberative discourses require excellent facilita-
tion, continuous support by the municipal administration, and profes-
sional input from experts on energy and discourse design [251]. In
conclusion, hybrid governance represents a promising approach to en-
ergy transitions, offering a pathway to more sustainable, inclusive, and
locally relevant energy policies. Ultimately, the overarching goal is to
cultivate a creative conict culture within the context of energy tran-
sitions; one that emphasizes inclusive and reective problem-solving
based on shared responsibility. Finally, effective communication
channels between the various governance levels need to be established
to ensure the exchange of ideas and plans among communities and be-
tween communities and higher levels of governance. By combining top-
down directives with bottom-up participation, this governance style
empowers communities to play a central role in the energy transition
while aligning local actions with broader environmental and societal
goals. Notwithstanding the fact that each governance level has its own
policymaking institutions, the mediative style would require additional
bridging capacity that provides nancial resources and staff for linking
each level to the next higher level. The examples from Scotland, Ger-
many, and the Netherlands demonstrate the potential of hybrid gover-
nance to facilitate successful energy transitions that are both effective
and equitable. Additional bureaucracy is not intended here but rather a
re-orientation of existing administrative bodies to facilitate the crucial
discourse between governance levels.
Specialized formats of participation, such as workshops with citizens
and stakeholders, have proven effective in activating local communities
for engagement in benet-sharing projects. Such engagement contrib-
utes to distributive justice by fostering the wider inclusion of citizens
and ensuring that the benets and responsibilities of energy transition
projects are equitably distributed among all affected parties, thereby
enhancing the overall legitimacy and social acceptance of these
initiatives.
Table 4 provides a synopsis of each of the four policy styles with the
addition of the new mediative governance style developed here. The
table may provide scholars and policymakers with a quick overview of
the promises, merits, and shortcomings of each of the policy styles
discussed.
Ultimately, referring to the four prototypes presented in Chapter 3,
we can provide a detailed overview of how various governance styles
can be integrated into the structures of participatory energy transitions.
The Classical Type of Public and Stakeholder Participation in Institutional-
ized Settings closely corresponds with autocratic and adversarial gover-
nance. In this prototype, participation is primarily individual and driven
by a functionalist and neoliberal concept aimed at improving decision
quality through expert knowledge. Autocratic governance reects
limited participation with a top-down management strategy, while
adversarial governance involves strong public participation but remains
rooted in hierarchical structures where expert outsiders guide decision-
making processes.
Table 4
Policy styles, participation opportunities, and energy transition actions.
Governance
Type
Mode of Decision-
Making and Government
Level of Participation Aspirations for
Energy Transitions
Participation in
Energy Transitions
Mode of Legitimacy Outcome Level of Actions
Autocratic
Governance
Strong political
leadership
Limited participation Fewer aspirations for
energy transitions
No participation in
energy transitions
Trust Outcome level of actions is
limited through a lack of
benets for political leaders
Adversarial
Governance
Two dominating parties Strong public
participation
Aspirations for energy
transitions
Low level of
participation in
energy transitions
Persuasion Outcome level of actions is
limited through opposition
and fear of losing public
support
Collaborative
Governance
Multi-stakeholder
arrangements
Strong stakeholder
participation
Aspirations for energy
transitions
High level of
participation in
energy transitions
for stakeholders
Responsiveness High outcome level of
actions is possible, but
mostly limited to certain
sectors
Reective
Governance
Joint decision-making
process
Strong public
participation and
deliberation
High aspirations for
energy transitions
High level of
participation in
energy transitions
for the public
Consensus Low outcome level of
actions, but high level of
process quality
Inclusive
Governance
Direct participation
process
Strong direct public
participation
High aspirations for
energy transitions
High level of
participatory
inuence on energy
transitions
Representation High outcome level of
actions is possible, but lack of
coordination and
comprehensive strategies is
common
Mediative
Governance
Scaling up issues:
Delegating local
representatives to the
next governance level
Flexible and inclusive
formats for
stakeholder and
public participation
Strong bottom-up
participation in open
spaces for
deliberative discourse
Enables energy
benet-sharing for
affected
communities
Inclusion and
horizontal as well as
vertical governance
integration
High outcome level of
actions is aspired to achieve
empowered energy
communities
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
14
The Discursive Type of Participation in Open Spaces aligns with
reective governance, characterized by a focus on public debate and
deliberation to achieve legitimate decision-making. This prototype
embraces a postmodern concept of stakeholder involvement, encour-
aging variability, plurality, and the legitimacy of dissent. Reective
governance involves strong public participation, emphasizing a bottom-
up approach where local knowledge and concerns for equity guide
planning and implementation, with evolving objectives through con-
stant dialogue between process and outcome.
The Direct Type of Participation in Decision-Making is best represented
by inclusive governance, where strong direct public participation is
achieved through voting and citizen assemblies. This prototype relies on
an anthropological concept of involvement, engaging common sense as
the ultimate arbiter in disputes and ensuring that all actors are included
to discuss and resolve differences openly.
The Community Type of Material and Collaborative Participation in
Energy Projects is aligned with collaborative governance, which features
strong stakeholder participation and emphasizes self-governance by
voluntary associations. This prototype is rooted in an emancipatory
concept of involvement, empowering less privileged groups by ensuring
equal access to material resources and using expert knowledge to
address risks.
The newly proposed hybrid policy style that we called “mediative”
bridges these prototypes by integrating elements of top-down and
bottom-up approaches, and fostering community sovereignty while
respecting global boundaries. It embodies characteristics of both
reective and inclusive governance, emphasizing decentralized
decision-making and community empowerment. This style supports a
synergy between local initiatives and broader policy frameworks,
encouraging participatory processes that enhance agency and collabo-
ration across different governance levels. The hybrid model aims to
achieve a balance where local contexts inform energy transitions, and
community-driven projects align with national and global sustainability
goals.
6. Future prospects for energy governance and policy research
Based on our conceptualization of policy styles in energy transitions,
we draw together here considerations and derivations for future energy
governance research. Besides considering the specic aspects of partic-
ipatory governance and policies, we take into account current chal-
lenges of democratic decision-making in energy transitions and related
obstacles recently identied by social science research.
In the following, we rst outline different energy governance and
policy styles. Second, we examine the possible effects on democratic
legitimacy through governance, and third, we consider some indications
for research and limitations.
In Table 5, we have amalgamated the principal mechanisms of the
ve policy styles for energy governance and compiled their effects on
democratic legitimacy. They are categorized following the four-class
differentiation from Chapter 3 between the classical type of public and
stakeholder participation in institutionalized settings, the discursive
type of participation in open spaces – in this overview connected with
the direct type of participation in decision-making capturing the
reective and inclusive governance styles – and the community type of
material and collaborative participation in energy projects.
Using the input, output, and throughput dimensions of democratic
legitimacy, we have formulated concrete questions and directions for
social science research.
Taking current research studies into consideration, we see the most
promising starting points for further research in three pursuits: deeper
insights into participatory strategies of inclusive governance and
collaborative planning [256]; a better understanding of modes of co-
creation by inclusive, collaborative, and hybrid governance [257]; and
a means of evaluating the degrees of legitimacy by participatory
governance arrangements [258]. For future research on participation in
Table 5
Energy governance and policy styles: Effects on the three core principles of
democratic legitimacy (adapted from [252–255]).
Prototypes of
Participatory
Energy
Transitions
Energy
Governance &
Policy Styles
Effects on
Democratic
Legitimacy
through
Governance
Indications for
Research
Classical Type of
Public and
Stakeholder
Participation in
Institutionalized
Settings
Autocratic and
Adversarial
Governance
Styles
Top-down
National Energy
Policy
Principles:
Creating ‘buy-in’,
regulation and
supply shifts, led
by aims and
objectives, end-
users, risk
framing and
trade-offs
Industries:
Carrots, sticks &
tambourines, co-
evolution of
institutions and
technology;
upscaling
strategies
Top-down
Governance
Style
Instruments of
invited
participation
Hard paths for
upscaling and
governance
Due
Accountability
Input legitimacy:
Who is
accountable for
the process for
reaching
decisions? How
are interactions
between the
participatory
process and
representational
institutions
secured?
Throughput
legitimacy: How
is feedback in the
process between
process
interactions and
the actors that are
accountable
arranged?
Output
legitimacy: Who
is accountable for
the nal decision?
How are
representational
institutions
involved in the
nal decision-
making stage?
Input: Formal
authority of
representative
bodies and
organized
interfaces at the
beginning
Inuence on energy
governance by
setting the rules and
conguration of
governing bodies
Throughput:
Arranged/
organized
moments for
providing
feedback to formal
representative
institutions
Control of the
energy governance
decision-making
process by
inuencing access
and procedures
Output: Formal
organized
authority for
decisions, actual
involvement at the
last stage
Using output
legitimacy for
justifying non-
popular
measurements
Discursive Type of
Participation in
Open Spaces
Direct Type of
Participation in
Decision-
Making
Reective and
Inclusive
Governance
Styles
Bottom-up Mode
in Energy
Transitions:
Involved Actors
and Mechanisms
Regional
governments
Cities and
communities
Local rms
Grassroots
innovations &
initiatives
Niche innovation
networks
Diffusion of
grassroots
innovations
Soft paths for
upscaling and
governance
Due Deliberation
Input legitimacy:
Is there equal
access to
information,
debate, etc.? Are
the procedures
transparent, clear,
and
understandable?
Throughput
legitimacy: How
are procedures
applied during the
process?
Are actors satised
with the
transparency of
the process?
What is the quality
of the debate?
Output
legitimacy: Are
participants
satised with the
quality of the
process? Are
actors satised
with the quality of
the debate of the
(end) proposal?
Input: Entry
possibilities and
limitations (and
regulations
regarding this),
clear procedures
Competing
strategies of actors
for obtaining access
and inuence
Throughput:
Satisfaction of
actors with
transparency,
range of
arguments
brought forward
(wide or narrow)
Feedback of actors
and inuence on
designing
procedures
Output: Overall
satisfaction of
actors with
process, judgment
of argumentation
Evaluation of the
output/outcome
and inuence on
revisions
(continued on next page)
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
15
energy governance, it is important to unravel the local policy focus,
characterize public support, and understand the governance approaches
taken, including existing sub-national governance arrangements [255].
The examination of energy stakeholders involves the following prom-
ising directions:
a) Unravelling energy governance and stakeholder participation by
revealing trends in privatization and municipalization, understand-
ing public opinion on policy issues, identifying key actors supporting
policy ideas, and exploring emerging visioning and governance
processes.
b) Discovering the nature of energy coalitions by pursuing questions about
policymaking structures, existing consensus in visioning or policy-
making processes, and the openness of the policy system to new
changes and ideas.
c) Identifying the foundations of participation and constraints in achieving
the vision for energy transitions, meaning understanding the state of
underutilized city resources, policy beliefs, municipal strategies, and
scal resources shaping policymaking.
d) Outlining impacts on/of policies by identifying the institutional matters
inuencing policymaking, including resource allocation and ap-
pointments, and by outlining the main policy outputs and their
impact.
Finally, we conclude with two remarks on the opportunities and
limitations of discovering participatory policy styles in energy
governance based on recent academic discourses in social energy
research and the current challenges of democratic decision-making in
energy transitions around the world.
First, we observe that siting energy infrastructure processes is para-
mount for a comprehensive understanding of how energy policy and
participation may or may not work [259–264]. The support for energy
infrastructure, including patterns of acceptance or rejection, is the most
decisive question in implementing energy transition policies all over the
world [265–269]. The lack of perceived legitimacy is deeply rooted in
the complex interaction between local, national, and supranational
politics and energy governance [270] on the one hand, and the place-
based embeddedness of energy infrastructure on the other hand, from
which follows the recognition of place attachment and place identity
[271–274] as well as community engagement [275]. Second, what is
consequently needed is a re-thinking of relationships between social
scientists in the energy eld and host communities, and thus a place-
based reexivity in research “to avoid extractive relations with host
communities and promote contextually relevant and democratic pro-
cesses in pursuit of a just transition”, providing a “clearer understanding
of place and positionality” [276,p.1]. We argue for a combination of
investigating the local conditions (regional studies) and insights into
democratic decision-making and procedural justice in energy transitions
[277,278].
7. Conclusion: A call for a comprehensive energy governance
research framework
This paper identies a research gap when it comes to integrating the
theoretical foundations of participation, understanding the contempo-
rary discourses on governance styles, and synthesizing the perspectives
from conceptual and empirical studies on public involvement in energy
transitions. At the beginning of the paper, we emphasized the global
importance of energy transitions in achieving climate neutrality and
highlighted the development of experimental strategies, concepts, and
formats by national governments, supranational institutions, and
regional administrations. Collaborative, multi-actor governance ar-
rangements, shaped by diverse stakeholders, were identied as prom-
ising attempts to foster new levels of public and stakeholder
participation. Empirical research and theoretical studies of participatory
practices have clearly demonstrated that stakeholder and public
participation constitutes a promising approach for democratic sustain-
ability transformations [6,63,74,162,180]. Based on this insight, we
briey discussed the efforts in the literature to link the traditional
concepts of political legitimacy, environmental justice, energy de-
mocracy, and participation to the conditions of energy transitions.
Different types of governance arrangements were introduced, reecting
a variety of political conditions, governance structures, and suprana-
tional constellations. Based on this review, we felt the need to create a
new theoretical framework informed by political, social, psychological,
economic, and spatial perspectives that promises to be better suited to
capturing the complex relationship between governance, participation,
and energy transitions.
To this end, we proposed to differentiate between ve styles of
democratic policymaking: autocratic, adversarial, collaborative, reex-
ive, and inclusive. These styles were briey described and then applied
to public participation in and for energy transitions. Each prototype has
its strengths and limitations in the context of energy transitions. They
are characterized by varying degrees of emphasis on public participation
and deliberation (cf. Table 4). The classication in ve governance types
provides a comprehensive and inclusive approach to analyzing the role,
function, and relevance of participation in the context of energy tran-
sitions. This classication is meant to offer a better analytical perspec-
tive for both research and practical applications.
The proposed classication distinguishes between bottom-up types
(collaborative, inclusive, reective) and top-down types (autocratic,
adversarial). The top-down forms of governance seemed to be
Table 5 (continued )
Prototypes of
Participatory
Energy
Transitions
Energy
Governance &
Policy Styles
Effects on
Democratic
Legitimacy
through
Governance
Indications for
Research
Community Type
of Material and
Collaborative
Participation in
Energy Projects
Collaborative
and Hybrid
Governance
Styles
Socially
Innovative
Multi-actor
Collaborations
Supra-local
governance &
political
framework:
networks,
agendas, settings
Local
governance &
path
dependencies:
Multi-actor
collaboration
regulations and
precedents
Actors involved
(specic logics,
agenda &
resources)
Drivers for
collaboration
(both individual
and collective)
Collaboration
dimensions
(hybrid
governance, roles
& stages)
Collaboration
outcomes (social
innovation
process & results)
Due Voice
Input legitimacy:
How is the
involvement of
stakeholders
arranged at the
beginning of the
process? What are
the depth and
width of voice
possibilities?
Throughput
legitimacy: What
opportunities do
actors have to
participate in the
actual process?
Output
legitimacy: In
what way can
participants'
contributions be
traced in
decisions? Do the
stakeholders
involved support
the decisions?
Input:
Regulations on
entry
stakeholders,
possible subjects
stakeholders have
a say about and
level of decisions
Negotiating the
regulations on the
distribution of
prioritization of
voices
Throughput:
Opportunities for
voice (organized
and invited) and
actual
participation
(number of
stakeholders and
intensity of
participation)
Practices of the
creational power in
procedures and
negotiations
Output:
Correspondence of
proposals with
ideas, satisfaction
of stakeholders
with result
Efforts to balance
the inuence on
output/outcome in
equal shares
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
16
inappropriate for promoting energy transitions and gaining public sup-
port for such policies. More appropriate are the bottom-up strategies.
Each bottom-up type offers unique opportunities and conditions for
participatory processes, with differences in the input, throughput, and
output dimensions of legitimacy. However, challenges such as conicts,
protests, and opposition may hinder the effectiveness of participatory
governance styles in the real world. We assume that while these pro-
totypes exist as ideal types, real-world democracies often exhibit a mix
of these policy styles.
In conclusion, we claim that none of the ve styles of democratic
governance is by itself capable of initiating an ambitious energy tran-
sition process. Autocratic and adversarial systems lack effective citizen
participation, while collaborative systems may compromise ambitious
policies and may lead to inconsistent decisions. Reective systems may
generate commitment but struggle with implementation, and inclusive
systems are unpredictable based on actor preferences. There is a need for
a hybrid governance model that combines collaboration with reective
and inclusive elements and takes spatial aspects into account. We
therefore propose a new policy style that we have labeled “mediative.”
This style combines the benets of the reective and inclusive style and
adds a spatial dimension. It places greatest emphasis on the community
level and builds bridges between the municipal, regional, national, and
EU governance levels. The objective here is to empower experts,
stakeholders, and citizens to co-design their life worlds and to nd
creative and socially acceptable solutions for the energy transition
[279].
Within the mediative policy style, we see a decisive need to combine
top-down, climate target-inuenced national energy policy with the
local conditions in the course of implementing energy policies. The hard
paths for upscaling and governance and the instruments of invited
participation are necessary in certain ways; however, these policy in-
struments have to be stabilized through stronger democratic legitimacy.
In this respect, we argue that in democratic methods of decision-making
through participatory governance, due accountability, deliberation, and
voice have to be anchored and set in motion by the four principles of
mediative governance described above.
This implies a shift towards community-centric decision-making and
towards bottom-up, innovative, and inclusive participation styles.
Community-based initiatives are seen as key to unlocking more exten-
sive inclusion, more diversity, and more intense collaboration [188].
Recognizing diverse perspectives, and co-creative participation and
benet-sharing are the two crucial elements for fostering recognition,
procedural, and distributive justice. A mediative style of governance
emphasizes the importance of navigating conicts by using combina-
tions of participation formats that provide open spaces for designing co-
creative solutions and bringing citizens, experts, and stakeholders
together. One possibility for reaching this objective is the establishment
of both real-world and digital labs, and a synthesis of stakeholder round
tables with citizen assemblies [236]. Overall, the aspiration is to
implement a cooperative and creative participation culture capable of
balancing democratic principles, ecological goals, and socially compat-
ible solutions in the pursuit of a sustainable and harmonious energy
transition.
While experiences with participation in energy transitions is a well-
researched topic, we propose a stronger reconciliation with research
insights from past decades, especially focusing on the local level [280]
and the promises and dilemmas of participation in order to overcome the
shortage of knowledge about best practices and potential pitfalls [61].
We agree with the assumption by Webler that in recent times, public
participation is “challenged by loss of trust in institutions and in-
dividuals and by broad socio-political dynamics that are weakening
democratic values and processes” [281,p.513]. He argues that “we need
better theories and guidance for how to apply general knowledge to
specic instances of public participation,” and that we can build on a
“rich repertoire of methods, a plentitude of case study reports, and a
wealth of insights about the importance of openness, transparency,
fairness, and competence” (ibid, p.514).
To meet these challenges of both discovering and, based on insights
from research, enhancing democratic decision-making in terms of en-
ergy democracy and justice, we call for a much stronger focus in social
science research on mediative components within the multifaceted
outows of governance arrangements in energy transitions. This enables
both the discovery and the resolution of possible missing links between
the different spaces and arenas of participation in energy transitions
embedded within the diverse policy styles across the world in order to
create new participatory procedures in the future. We identify a major
future challenge in creating these approaches by nding policy re-
sponses to climate change adaption [282,283] and realizing energy
communities based on participatory planning [77]. Effective public
administration and governance go hand in hand with inclusive forms of
participation [284], providing the specic opportunities required for
participatory, associative, deliberative, and material citizen engagement
in energy transitions. In the end, this could mean reconciling the bottom-
up and top-down directions when it comes to managing and fostering
energy participation by creating acceptance, addressing public percep-
tions, prioritizing civic engagement, incentivizing innovation,
enhancing systemic coordination across sectors and levels, and
acknowledging the causes of climate change and interrelated gover-
nance issues [253]. This remains the most decisive cornerstone of the
democratic challenge in the societal transition to climate neutrality.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
J¨
org Radtke: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
Conceptualization. Ortwin Renn: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Investigation,
Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledges
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Lisa-Marie
K¨
ahler who helped them with managing references and literature. This
research was supported by funding from the Energy Research Pro-
gramme of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action
based on the political goals of the German government.
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2022, in:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers, 2022 [March 13,
2024]; Available from, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/repo
rt/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.
[2] J. Chilvers, N. Longhurst, Participation in transition(s): reconceiving public
engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse,
J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18 (5) (2016) 585–607, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2015.1110483.
[3] R. Lidskog, I. Elander, Addressing climate change democratically. Multi-level
governance, transnational networks and governmental structures, Sustain. Dev.
18 (1) (2010) 32–41, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.395.
[4] C. Fraune, M. Knodt, Challenges of citizen participation in infrastructure policy-
making in multi-level systems—the case of onshore wind energy expansion in
Germany, Eur. Policy Anal. 3 (2) (2017) 256–273, https://doi.org/10.1002/
epa2.1022.
[5] OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions:
Catching the Deliberative Wave [January 30, 2024]; Available from, https://
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
17
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-de
mocratic-institutions_339306da-en, 2020.
[6] J. Dryzek, A. B¨
achtiger, S. Chambers, J.W. Cohen, J.N. Druckman, A. Felicetti, J.
S. Fishkin, et al., The crisis of Democracy and the science of deliberation, Science
363 (6432) (2019) 1144–1146, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694.
[7] S. Sareen, H. Haarstad, Legitimacy and accountability in the governance of
sustainable energy transitions, Glob. Transit. 2 (2020) 47–50, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.glt.2020.02.001.
[8] F. Proedrou, Exploring EU energy governance and policy under a demoi-cratic
lens: citizen participation, output legitimacy and democratic interdependence,
Eur. Politics Soc. 23 (3) (2022) 364–379, https://doi.org/10.1080/
23745118.2021.1873043.
[9] O. Renn, Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World
(Earthscan Risk in Society Series), Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA, 2008.
[10] H. Solman, M. Smits, B. van Vliet, S. Bush, Co-production in the wind energy
sector: a systematic literature review of public engagement beyond invited
stakeholder participation, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72 (2021) 101876, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101876.
[11] E. Cuppen, The value of social conicts. Critiquing invited participation in energy
projects. Energy Research & Social, Science 38 (2018) 28–32, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.016.
[12] J.F. Green, T. Sterner, G. Wagner, A balance of bottom-up and top-down in
linking climate policies, Nat. Clim. Chang. 4 (12) (2014) 1064–1067, https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate2429.
[13] H.J. Wiseman, Evolving energy federalism: Current allocations of authority and
the need for inclusive governance, in: K. Robbins (Ed.), The Law and Policy of
Environmental Federalism: A Comparative Analysis, Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham, Northampton, 2015, pp. 114–142.
[14] E. Martinez-Hernandez, A. Castillo-Landero, D. Dominguillo-Ramírez, M.
A. Amezcua-Allieri, S. Morse, R. Murphy, et al., Priorities and relevance of
bioenergy sustainability indicators: a participatory selection framework applied
to community-based forestry in Mexico, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 109 (2024) 103425,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103425.
[15] J.J. Richardson, G. Gustafsson, G. Jordan, The concept of policy style, in: J.
J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy Styles in Western Europe (Routledge Revivals),
Routledge, Milton Park, 2013, pp. 1–16.
[16] D. Vogel, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain
and the United States, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1986 (Cornell studies
in political economy).
[17] M. Howlett, J. Tosun, National policy styles in theory and practice, in:
M. Howlett, J. Tosun (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles (Routledge
International Handbooks), 1st ed., Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY,
2021, pp. 15–24.
[18] V. Brendler, Who shapes the energy transition? National regulatory styles and
societal involvement in renewable energy policy, Z Politikwiss. 33 (2) (2023)
325–354, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-022-00326-2.
[19] M.S. Righettini, G. Vicentini, Assessing and comparing participatory governance
in energy transition: evidence from the 27 European Union member states,
J. Comp. Policy Anal.: Res. Pract. 25 (6) (2023) 565–584, https://doi.org/
10.1080/13876988.2023.2260994.
[20] D. Traneld, D. Denyer, P. Smart, Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3) (2003) 207–222, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
[21] B. Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, in: Keele, UK,
Keele University 33, 2004, pp. 1–26.
[22] A. Booth, M. Martyn-St James, M. Clowes, A. Sutton, A. Booth, A. Sutton, et al.,
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, SAGE Publications,
London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore, 2021.
[23] J.P. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions: Cochrane Book Series, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2008.
[24] H. Arksey, L. O’Malley, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework,
Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (1) (2005) 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1364557032000119616.
[25] CASP, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists; Oxford [August 14,
2024]; Available from, https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists, 2018.
[26] M. Petticrew, H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical
Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Malden, Oxford, Carlton, 2008.
[27] V. Braun, V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3
(2) (2006) 77–101.
[28] J. Popay, H. Roberts, A. Sowden, M. Petticrew, L. Arai, M. Rodgers, et al.,
Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product
from the ESRC methods programme, Version 1, 2006, https://doi.org/10.13140/
2.1.1018.4643.
[29] F. Song, S. Parekh, L. Hooper, Y.K. Loke, J. Ryder, A.J. Sutton, et al.,
Dissemination and publication of research ndings: an updated review of related
biases, Health Technol. Assess. 14 (8) (2010) 1–193, https://doi.org/10.3310/
hta14080, iii, ix-xi.
[30] M. Sandelowski, Sample size in qualitative research, Res. Nurs. Health 18 (2)
(1995) 179–183, https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211.
[31] G. Smith, Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation
(Theories of Institutional Design), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
New York, 2009.
[32] V. Blok, Look who’s talking: responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and
the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes, J. Responsible
Innov. 1 (2) (2014) 171–190, https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.924239.
[33] Z. Clulow, D.M. Reiner, Democracy, economic development and Low-carbon
energy: when and why Does democratization promote energy transition?
Sustainability 14 (20) (2022) 13213 https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013213.
[34] J. Radtke, L. Holstenkamp, J. Barnes, O. Renn, Concepts, formats, and methods of
participation: Theory and practice, in: L. Holstenkamp, J. Radtke (Eds.),
Handbuch Energiewende und Partizipation, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2018,
pp. 21–42.
[35] M. Di Gregorio, L. Fatorelli, J. Paavola, B. Locatelli, E. Pramova, D.
R. Nurrochmat, et al., Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy
networks, Glob. Environ. Chang. 54 (2019) 64–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2018.10.003.
[36] Y.-H. Ha, S.S. Kumar, Investigating decentralized renewable energy systems
under different governance approaches in Nepal and Indonesia: how does
governance fail? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 80 (2021) 102214 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2021.102214.
[37] J. Cent, M. Grodzi´
nska-Jurczak, A. Pietrzyk-Kaszy´
nska, Emerging multilevel
environmental governance – a case of public participation in Poland, J. Nat.
Conserv. 22 (2) (2014) 93–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.09.005.
[38] J. Newig, O. Fritsch, Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and
effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19 (3) (2009) 197–214, https://doi.org/10.1002/
eet.509.
[39] H. Brighouse, Civic education and Liberal legitimacy, Ethics 108 (4) (1998)
719–745, https://doi.org/10.1086/233849.
[40] R.A. Buchholz, The ethics of consumption activities: a future paradigm? J. Bus.
Ethics 17 (8) (1998) 871–882, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005753003896.
[41] M. Hough, Good Policing: Trust, Legitimacy and Authority, Policy Press, Bristol,
2020.
[42] J. von Stein, Democracy, autocracy, and everything in between: how domestic
institutions affect environmental protection, Br. J. Political Sci. 52 (1) (2022)
339–357, https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000054X.
[43] K. Jenkins, D. McCauley, R. Heffron, H. Stephan, R. Rehner, Energy justice: a
conceptual review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016) 174–182, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004.
[44] K.E. Jenkins, B.K. Sovacool, N. Mouter, N. Hacking, M.K. Burns, D. McCauley, et
al., The methodologies, geographies, and technologies of energy justice: a
systematic and comprehensive review, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (4) (2021) 43009,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd78c.
[45] R. Paloniemi, E. Apostolopoulou, J. Cent, D. Bormpoudakis, A. Scott,
M. Grodzi´
nska-Jurczak, et al., Public participation and environmental justice in
biodiversity governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK, Environ. Policy
Gov. 25 (5) (2015) 330–342, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1672.
[46] K.E. Jenkins, Energy justice, energy Democracy, and sustainability: Normative
approaches to the consumer ownership of renewables, in: J. Lowitzsch (Ed.),
Energy Transition: Financing Consumer co-Ownership in Renewables, Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham, 2019, pp. 79–97.
[47] D. Schlosberg, Environmental Justice and the New Pluralism: The Challenge of
Difference for Environmentalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
[48] A. Banerjee, E. Prehoda, R. Sidortsov, C. Schelly, Renewable, ethical? Assessing
the energy justice potential of renewable electricity, AIMS Energy 5 (5) (2017)
768–797, https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2017.5.768.
[49] S. Bouzarovski, N. Simcock, Spatializing energy justice, Energy Policy 107 (2017)
640–648, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.064.
[50] J. Firestone, C. Hirt, D. Bidwell, M. Gardner, J. Dwyer, Faring well in offshore
wind power siting? Trust, engagement and process fairness in the United States,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62 (2020) 101393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2019.101393.
[51] Y. Malakar, M.J. Herington, V. Sharma, The temporalities of energy justice:
examining India’s energy policy paradox using non-western philosophy, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 49 (2019) 16–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.002.
[52] B.K. Sovacool, R.V. Sidortsov, B.R. Jones, Energy Security, Equality and Justice,
Routledge, Milton Park, 2013.
[53] K. Szulecki, Conceptualizing energy democracy, Environ. Politics 27 (1) (2018)
21–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1387294.
[54] E. Ostrom, The challenge of common-Pool resources, Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain.
Dev. 50 (4) (2008) 8–21, https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21.
[55] P.C. Stern, K.S. Wolske, T. Dietz, Design principles for climate change decisions,
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 52 (2021) 9–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2021.05.002.
[56] K. Roerich, C. Knoeri, Governing the infrastructure commons: lessons for
community energy from common pool resource management, in: Sustainability
Research Institute (SRI) Papers 87, 2015.
[57] B.K. Sovacool, M. Burke, L. Baker, C.K. Kotikalapudi, H. Wlokas, New frontiers
and conceptual frameworks for energy justice, Energy Policy 105 (2017)
677–691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.005.
[58] M.J. Burke, J.C. Stephens, Energy democracy: goals and policy instruments for
sociotechnical transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33 (2017) 35–48, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.024.
[59] B.K. Sovacool, D.J. Hess, R. Cantoni, Energy transitions from the cradle to the
grave: a meta-theoretical framework integrating responsible innovation, social
practices, and energy justice, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 75 (2021) 102027, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102027.
[60] M.F. de Poza-Vilches, J. Guti´
errez-P´
erez, A. L´
opez-Alcarria, Participation and
sustainable development, in: W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 1–12
[April 25, 2024]; Available from, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951
-2_57-1.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
18
[61] K.A. Schafft, D.J. Greenwood, Promises and dilemmas of participation: action
research, search conference methodology, and community development,
J. Community Dev. Soc. 34 (1) (2003) 18–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15575330309490101.
[62] B. van Veelen, D. van der Horst, What is energy democracy? Connecting social
science energy research and political theory, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46 (2018)
19–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.010.
[63] O. Renn, P.J. Schweizer, Inclusive governance for energy policy making:
Conceptual foundations, applications, and lessons learned, in: O. Renn, F. Ulmer,
A. Deckert (Eds.), The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions,
Academic Press, London, San Diego, Cambridge, Kidlington, 2020, pp. 39–79.
[64] O. Renn, P.J. Schweizer, Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to
environmental policy making, Environ. Policy Gov. 19 (3) (2009) 174–185,
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.507.
[65] J. Habermas, Legitimation crisis (An H. E. B. paperback), Heinemann, London,
1976.
[66] J. Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.
[67] J. Habermas, Further reections on the public sphere, in: C. Calhoun (Ed.),
Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993,
pp. 421–461.
[68] H. Keman (Ed.), Comparative Democratic Politics: A Guide to Contemporary
Theory and Research, 1st ed., SAGE, London, 2002.
[69] A. Ron, Modes of democratic governance, in: D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2012,
pp. 472–484.
[70] J. Pierre, B.G. Peters, Governance, Politics and the State (Political Analysis), 2nd
ed., Red Globe Press, London, 2020.
[71] A. Fung, Associations and Democracy: between theories, hopes, and realities,
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29 (1) (2003) 515–539, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
soc.29.010202.100134.
[72] A. Fung, Varieties of participation in complex governance, Public Adm. Rev. 66
(s1) (2006) 66–75, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x.
[73] L. Pellizzoni, Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy, Environ. Values 12 (2)
(2003) 195–224, https://doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341298.
[74] S. Chambers, Deliberative democratic theory, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 6 (1) (2003)
307–326, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.
[75] M.E. Warren, Institutionalizing deliberative Democracy, in: S.W. Rosenberg (Ed.),
Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, Palgrave
Macmillan UK, London, 2007, pp. 272–288.
[76] J.S. Dryzek, S. Niemeyer, Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
[77] G. St Denis, P. Parker, Community energy planning in Canada: the role of
renewable energy, Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (8) (2009) 2088–2095, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.030.
[78] J. Arkhangelski, M. Abdou-Tankari, G. Lefebvre, Evaluation of residential up and
down-regulation participation for additional exibility of distribution grid:
French case, in: 10th International Conference on Renewable Energy, 2021,
pp. 99–104 [May 28, 2024]; Available from, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstra
ct/document/9598574?casa_token=WiQvYOlLamQAAAAA:CgdIB1rxCRK5p
qx3tCORznIGbYl01xiP3aNoTcbrSCJzdfusCvxdLr34f3a4ol96KTJ0OUwA.
[79] T.M. Koontz, J. Newig, From planning to implementation: top-down and bottom-
up approaches for collaborative watershed management, Policy Stud. J. 42 (3)
(2014) 416–442, https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12067.
[80] A. Benz, Y. Papadopoulos, Introduction: Governance and Democracy: Concepts
and Key Issues, in: A. Benz, Y. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Governance and democracy:
comparing national, European and international experiences (Routledge/ECPR
studies in European political science), Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, 2006,
pp. 3–29.
[81] M. Bevir, Democratic Governance, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2010.
[82] K. Szulecki, I. Overland, Energy democracy as a process, an outcome and a goal: a
conceptual review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69 (2020) 101768, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2020.101768.
[83] F. Heidenreich, Nachhaltigkeit und Demokratie: eine politische Theorie
(Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft), Suhrkamp, Berlin, 2023.
[84] A. Michels, Citizen participation and democracy in the Netherlands,
Democratization 13 (2) (2006) 323–339, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13510340500524067.
[85] P. Biegelbauer, J. Hansen, Democratic theory and citizen participation:
democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and
technology, Sci. Public Policy 38 (8) (2011) 589–597, https://doi.org/10.3152/
030234211X13092649606404.
[86] D.D. Porta, Can Democracy be Saved: Participation, Deliberation and Social
Movements, 1st ed., Polity, Cambridge, 2013.
[87] J. Gaventa, Towards participatory local governance: Assessing the transformative
possibilities, in: S. Hickey, G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to
Transformation?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004, pp. 25–41.
[88] R.A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
2006.
[89] W. Merkel, Embedded and defective democracies, Democratization 11 (5) (2004)
33–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340412331304598.
[90] T.M. Moe, M. Caldwell, The institutional foundations of democratic government:
a comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems, J. Institutional Theor.
Econ. (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 150 (1) (1994)
171–195.
[91] H. Keman, Patterns of multi-party government: viability and compatibility of
coalitions, Pol. Sci. 63 (1) (2011) 10–28, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0032318711407741.
[92] T. O’Riordan, B. Wynne, Regulating environmental risks: A comparative
perspective, in: P.R. Kleindorfer, H.C. Kunreuther (Eds.), Insuring and Managing
Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and beyond, Springer, Berlin, 1987,
pp. 389–410.
[93] A. Klinke, Dynamic multilevel governance for sustainable transformation as
postnational conguration, Innovation: Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 30 (3) (2017)
323–349, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1205969.
[94] O. Renn, The changing character of regulation: a comparison of Europe and the
United States. A Comment, Risk Anal. 21 (3) (2001) 406–410.
[95] Y. Papadopoulos, Analysis of functions and dysfunctions of direct Democracy:
top-down and bottom-up perspectives, Polit. Soc. 23 (4) (1995) 421–448, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0032329295023004002.
[96] M.K. Miller, Don’t call it a comeback: autocratic ruling parties after
democratization, Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51 (2) (2021) 559–583, https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0007123419000012.
[97] R.M. Marsh, Authoritarian and democratic transitions in National Political
Systems, Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 32 (3–4) (1991) 219–232.
[98] S. Geall, W. Shen, Gongbuzeren, Solar energy for poverty alleviation in China:
state ambitions, bureaucratic interests, and local realities, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41
(2018) 238–248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.035.
[99] J. Erhardt, S. Wamsler, M. Freitag, National identity between democracy and
autocracy: a comparative analysis of 24 countries, Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. 13 (1)
(2021) 59–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773920000351.
[100] P. Heller, Democracy in the global south, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 48 (1) (2022)
463–484, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-123449.
[101] S. Bouzarovski, M. Bassin, Energy and identity: imagining Russia as a
hydrocarbon superpower, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101 (4) (2011) 783–794.
[102] A. Dutta, K.B. Nielsen, Autocratic environmental governance in India, in:
S. Wildmalm (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia,
Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY, 2022, pp. 70–80.
[103] V-Dem, Democracy Report 2024, in: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot,
2024 [May 13, 2024]; Available from, https://www.v-dem.net/document
s/44/v-dem_dr2024_highres.pdf.
[104] J. Krane, Climate change and fossil fuel: An examination of risks for the energy
industry and producer states, MRS Energy Sustain. 4 (1) (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1557/mre.2017.3.
[105] T.N. Sequeira, M.S. Santos, Renewable energy and politics: a systematic review
and new evidence, J. Clean. Prod. 192 (2018) 553–568, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.04.190.
[106] M. Alkon, A. Wong, Authoritarian energy transitions undermined? Environmental
governance cycles in China’s power sector, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68 (2020)
101531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101531.
[107] M. Yazdi, A. Nedjati, E. Zarei, R. Abbassi, A reliable risk analysis approach using
an extension of best-worst method based on democratic-autocratic decision-
making style, J. Clean. Prod. 256 (2020) 120418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.120418.
[108] M. Mauk, Citizen Support for Democratic and Autocratic Regimes, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2020.
[109] J. Barnes, Public participation and energy system transformations, in: D. Endres,
T.R. Peterson, S.L. Gomez (Eds.), am Feldpausch-Parker, Routledge, Routledge
Handbook of Energy Democracy. Milton Park, 2021, pp. 239–255.
[110] M. Dumas, J. Rising, J. Urpelainen, Political competition and renewable energy
transitions over long time horizons: a dynamic approach, Ecol. Econ. 124 (2016)
175–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.019.
[111] R.A. Kagan, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, Second edition,
Harvard University Press, Boston, 2019.
[112] M. Guy, Competition Policy in Healthcare: Frontiers in Insurance-Based and
Taxation-Funded Systems, Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Chicago, 2019.
[113] R.P. Lejano, J. Dodge, The narrative properties of ideology: the adversarial turn
and climate skepticism in the USA, Policy. Sci. 50 (2) (2017) 195–215, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9274-9.
[114] V. Koskimaa, L. Rapeli, S. Himmelroos, Decision-makers, advisers or educable
subjects? Policymakers’ perceptions of citizen participation in a Nordic
democracy, Governance 37 (1) (2024) 261–279, https://doi.org/10.1111/
gove.12762.
[115] A.H. S
¸orman, E. Turhan, The limits of authoritarian energy governance: Energy,
democracy and public contestation in Turkey, in: M. Nadesan, M.J. Pasqualetti,
J. Keahey (Eds.), Energy Democracies for Sustainable Futures, Academic Press,
London, San Diego, Cambridge, Kidlington, 2023, pp. 233–242.
[116] E.H. Bauman, O. Renn, Air quality standards and regulatory styles in West
Germany and the United States of America, in: L.J. Brasser, W.C. Mulder (Eds.),
Man and his Ecosystem Proceedings of the 8th World Clean Air Congress, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 175–180.
[117] M. Howlett, Beyond legalism? Policy ideas, implementation styles and emulation-
based convergence in Canadian and US environmental policy, J. Publ. Policy 20
(3) (2000) 305–329, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00000866.
[118] O. Renn, Akzeptanz und Energiewende. Bürgerbeteiligung als Voraussetzung für
gelingende Transformationsprozesse, Jahrbuch für Christliche
Sozialwissenschaften 56 (2015) 133–154.
[119] J. Richardson, G. Gustafsson, G. Jordan, The concept of policy style, in: J.
J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy Styles in Western Europe, Allen & Unwin, London,
1982, pp. 1–16.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
19
[120] G.J. Busenberg, Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy,
Policy Sci. 32 (1) (1999) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004414605851.
[121] B. Warren, P. Christoff, D. Green, Australia’s sustainable energy transition: the
disjointed politics of decarbonisation, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 21 (2016) 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.01.001.
[122] K. Gupta, Comparative public policy: using the comparative method to advance
our understanding of the policy process, Policy Stud. J. 40 (s1) (2012) 11–26,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00443.x.
[123] M. S
¸erban, Stemming the tide of illiberalism? Legal mobilization and adversarial
legalism in central and Eastern Europe, Communist Post-Communist Stud. 51 (3)
(2018) 177–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2018.06.001.
[124] J. Tosun, M. Howlett, Analyzing national policy styles empirically using the
sustainable governance indicators (SGI): insights into long-term patterns of
policy-making, Eur. Policy Anal. 8 (2) (2022) 160–177, https://doi.org/10.1002/
epa2.1142.
[125] N. Mirza, B. Naqvi, S.K. Rizvi, M. Umar, Fiscal or monetary? Efcacy of regulatory
regimes and energy trilemma of the ination reduction act (IRA), Int. Rev. Financ.
Anal. 90 (2023) 102821, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102821.
[126] S. Carley, M. Graff, A just U.S. energy transition, in: D.M. Konisky (Ed.),
Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham,
Northampton, 2020, pp. 434–447.
[127] S. Carley, C. Engle, D.M. Konisky, An analysis of energy justice programs across
the United States, Energy Policy 152 (2021) 112219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2021.112219.
[128] D.J. Hess, Coalitions, framing, and the politics of energy transitions: local
democracy and community choice in California, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50 (2019)
38–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.013.
[129] L.C. Stokes, H.L. Breetz, Politics in the U.S. energy transition: case studies of solar,
wind, biofuels and electric vehicles policy, Energy Policy 113 (2018) 76–86,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.057.
[130] L. Gottschamer, Q. Zhang, Interactions of factors impacting implementation and
sustainability of renewable energy sourced electricity, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 65 (2016) 164–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.017.
[131] S. Carley, D.M. Konisky, The justice and equity implications of the clean energy
transition, Nat. Energy 5 (8) (2020) 569–577, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-
020-0641-6.
[132] P. Johnstone, A. Stirling, Comparing nuclear trajectories in Germany and the
United Kingdom: from regimes to democracies in sociotechnical transitions and
discontinuities, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 59 (2020) 101245, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2019.101245.
[133] S. Haldar, A. Peddibhotla, A. Bazaz, Analysing intersections of justice with energy
transitions in India - a systematic literature review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 98 (2023
Apr 1) 103010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103010.
[134] S. Haldar, T. Tripathi, What besets entrepreneurs in renewable energy sector? –
insights from the Indian state of Gujarat, IJESM 17 (2) (2023) 209–226, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-06-2021-0002.
[135] D. Gilbert, P. Chatterjee, Buffeted or energized? India’s dynamic energy
transition, in: G. Wood, K. Baker (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Managing
Fossil Fuels and Energy Transitions, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020,
pp. 223–260.
[136] R.M. Elvarasan, G.M. Shaullah, S. Padmanaban, N.M. Kumar, A. Annam, A.
M. Vetrichelvan, et al., A comprehensive review on renewable energy
development, challenges, and policies of leading Indian states with an
international perspective, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 74432–74457.
[137] A. Goswami, K.R. Bandyopadhyay, A. Kumar, Exploring the nature of rural energy
transition in India, IJESM 11 (3) (2017 Jan 1) 463–479, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJESM-11-2016-0001.
[138] Y. Papadopoulos, The democratic quality of collaborative governance, in: D. Levi-
Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York, 2012, pp. 512–526.
[139] H.H. Perritt Jr., Negotiated rulemaking in practice, J. Policy Anal. Manage. 5 (3)
(1986) 482–495, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.4050050305.
[140] J.E. Innes, de Booher, The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance
Capacity [May 15, 2019]; Available from, https://escholarship.org/uc/item
/98k72547, 2003.
[141] J.E. Mosley, J. Wong, Decision-making in collaborative governance networks:
pathways to input and throughput legitimacy, J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 31 (2)
(2021) 328–345, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa044.
[142] O. Berthod, T. Blanchet, H. Busch, C. Kunze, C. Nolden, M. Wenderlich, The rise
and fall of energy Democracy: 5 cases of collaborative governance in energy
systems, Environ. Manag. 71 (3) (2023) 551–564, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-022-01687-8.
[143] R. L¨
oftstedt, D. Vogel, The changing character of regulation. A comparison of
Europe and the United States, Risk Anal. 21 (3) (2001) 393–402.
[144] R. Zohlnh¨
ofer, J. Tosun, From the ‘rationalist consensus’ to ‘exclusive
incrementalism’: The ‘new’ German policy style, in: M. Howlett, J. Tosun (Eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles (Routledge International Handbooks),
1st ed., Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY, 2021, pp. 50–62.
[145] R.A. Kagan, Introduction: comparing national styles of regulation in Japan and
the United States, Law Policy 22 (3–4) (2000) 225–244, https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9930.00092.
[146] L.K. McAllister, Enforcement Style in the Global South, Prepared for presentation
at “The Virtues & Vices of Legalism – A Conference Honoring the Work of Robert
A. Kagan,” Berkeley, CA, September 19, 2008, Available from, https://www.law.
berkeley.edu/les/McAllisterpaperforKaganpdf.pdf, 2008.
[147] J. Newman, M. Barnes, H. Sullivan, A. Knops, Public participation and
collaborative governance, J. Soc. Policy 33 (2) (2004) 203–223, https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0047279403007499.
[148] L. Gailing, A. R¨
ohring, Is it all about collaborative governance? Alternative ways
of understanding the success of energy regions, Util. Policy 41 (2016) 237–245,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.009.
[149] S. Hadden, Regulatory Negotiation as Citizen Participation. A Critique, in:
O. Renn, T. Webler, P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, Boston, 1995, pp. 239–252.
[150] T. Winkelmann, S.C. Birner, Vom Winde verweht? Zu den Widerst¨
anden gegen
den Windenergieanlagenausbau in Deutschland, ZfP 69 (4) (2022) 431–450,
https://doi.org/10.5771/0044-3360-2022-4-431.
[151] R. Øjvind Nielsen, E. Sørensen, J. Torng, Drivers of collaborative governance for
the green transition, Public Manag. Rev. (2024) 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14719037.2024.2358321.
[152] S. Sillak, All talk, and (no) action? Collaborative implementation of the renewable
energy transition in two frontrunner municipalities in Denmark, Energ. Strat. Rev.
45 (2023) 101051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101051.
[153] J.K. Kirkegaard, D. Rudolph, S. Nyborg, T. Cronin, The landrush of wind energy,
its socio-material workings, and its political consequences: on the entanglement
of land and wind assemblages in Denmark, Environ. Plan. C: Politics Space 41 (3)
(2023) 548–566, https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544221143657.
[154] R. Darrow, Alternative Power: The Politics of Denmark’s Renewable Energy
Transition [Dissertation], University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, 2023.
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/2976.
[155] W. van der Gaast, K. Begg, A. Flamos, Promoting sustainable energy technology
transfers to developing countries through the CDM, Appl. Energy 86 (2) (2009)
230–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.03.009.
[156] L. Dilling, E. Pizzi, J. Berggren, A. Ravikumar, K. Andersson, Drivers of
adaptation: responses to weather- and climate-related hazards in 60 local
governments in the intermountain Western U.S, Environ. Plan. A. 49 (11) (2017)
2628–2648, https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16688686.
[157] O. Corless, Decarbonizing Austin: Strategies to Increase Equity in Solar Adoption
[Master’s Report], The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 2023. https://hdl.
handle.net/2152/119368.
[158] J.R. Adams, The Transition Is out of Joint: On Petro-Racial Capitalism and
Renewable Energy Transition in Austin, Texas [Dissertation], University of
California, Irvine, 2023. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6j44x1bg.
[159] C. Lafont, Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of
Deliberative Democracy, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2019.
[160] J. Ainscough, R. Willis, Embedding deliberation: guiding the use of deliberative
mini-publics in climate policy-making, Clim. Policy 24 (6) (2024) 828–842,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2303337.
[161] T. Webler, “Right” discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick, in:
O. Renn, T. Webler, P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, Boston, 1995, pp. 35–86.
[162] A. B¨
achtiger, M. Set¨
al¨
a, K. Gr¨
onlund, Towards a new era of deliberative mini-
publics, in: K. Gr¨
onlund, A. B¨
achtiger, M. Set¨
al¨
a (Eds.), Deliberative mini-Publics:
Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, Ecpr Press Colchester, Colchester,
2014, pp. 225–246.
[163] H. Friberg-Fernros, J.K. Schaffer, The consensus paradox: Does deliberative
agreement impede rational discourse? Political Stud. 62 (S1) (2014) 99–116.
[164] G. Valkenburg, G. Cotella, Governance of energy transitions: about inclusion and
closure in complex sociotechnical problems, Energy Sustain. Soc. 6 (1) (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-016-0086-8.
[165] J. Mansbridge, J. Bohman, S. Chambers, D. Estlund, A. Føllesdal, A. Fung, et al.,
The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative Democracy, J. Polit.
Philos. 18 (1) (2010) 64–100, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.
x.
[166] C. Lafont, Deliberation, participation and democratic legitimacy: should
deliberative Mini-publics shape public policy? J. Political Philos. 23 (1) (2015)
40–63, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12031.
[167] C. Menkel-Meadow, Applying conict resolution insights to hyper-polarization:
“when will (we) ever learn?”, Con. Resolut. Q. 39 (4) (2022) https://doi.org/
10.1002/crq.21335.
[168] P. Sabatier, H. Jenkins-Smith, Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy
Coalition Approach, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1993.
[169] M.A. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization
and the Policy Process, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
[170] C. Mouffe, Deliberative democracy of agonistic pluralism? Soc. Res. 66 (3) (1999)
745–758.
[171] T. Brand, V. Blok, M. Verweij, Stakeholder dialogue as agonistic deliberation:
exploring the role of conict and self-interest in business-NGO interaction, Bus.
Ethics Q. 30 (1) (2019) 3–30, https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.21.
[172] J.S. Dryzek, S. Niemeyer, Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals,
Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50 (3) (2006) 634–649, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5907.2006.00206.x.
[173] M. Wahlund, J. Palm, The role of energy democracy and energy citizenship for
participatory energy transitions: a comprehensive review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 87
(2022) 102482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102482.
[174] J. Newig, O. Fritsch, Der Beitrag zivilgesellschaftlicher Partizipation zur
Effektivit¨
atssteigerung von Governance: Eine Analyse umweltpolitischer
Beteiligungsverfahren im transatlantischen Vergleich, in: I. Bode, A. Evers,
A. Klein (Eds.), Bürgergesellschaft als Projekt: Eine Bestandsaufnahme zu
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
20
Entwicklung und F¨
orderung zivilgesellschaftlicher Potenziale in Deutschland, VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2009, pp. 214–239.
[175] Y. Papadopoulos, P. Warin, Are innovative, participatory and deliberative
procedures in policy making democratic and effective? Eur. J. Polit. Res. 46 (4)
(2007) 445–472, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x.
[176] W.F. Lamb, M. Antal, K. Bohnenberger, L.I. Brand-Correa, F. Müller-Hansen,
M. Jakob, et al., What are the social outcomes of climate policies? A systematic
map and review of the ex-post literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (11) (2020)
113006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc11f.
[177] M.M. Sokołowski, R.J. Heffron, Dening and conceptualising energy policy
failure: the when, where, why, and how, Energy Policy 161 (2022) 112745,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112745.
[178] S. Schaub, J. Tosun, Moralisieren als narrative Strategie im politischen Diskurs:
Einblicke aus der klimapolitischen Debatte in Deutschland, in: E. Felder,
F. Nüssel, J. Tosun (Eds.), Moral und Moralisierung - Neue Zug¨
ange, Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2024, pp. 63–85.
[179] M. Wironen, R. Bartlett, J. Erickson, Deliberation and the promise of a deeply
democratic sustainability transition, Sustainability 11 (4) (2019) 1023, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su11041023.
[180] N. Curato, J.S. Dryzek, S.A. Ercan, C.M. Hendriks, S. Niemeyer, Twelve key
ndings in deliberative Democracy research, Daedalus 146 (3) (2017) 28–38,
https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00444.
[181] J. Breckon, A. Hopkins, B. Rickey, Evidence vs Democracy: How 'mini-publics' can
traverse the gap between citizens, experts, and evidence [May 30, 2024];
Available from, https://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/publication/evidence
-vs-democracy/, 2019.
[182] L.R. Jacobs, F.L. Cook, M.X. Delli Carpini, Talking Together: Public Deliberation
and Political Participation in America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
2009.
[183] M.F. Fan, Deliberative Democracy in Taiwan: A Deliberative Systems Perspective,
Routledge, Milton Park, 2020.
[184] S.A. Ercan, J.S. Dryzek, The reach of deliberative democracy, Policy Stud. 36 (3)
(2015) 241–248, https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1065969.
[185] T. Pogrebinschi, Deliberative Democracy in Latin America, in: A. B¨
achtiger,
J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, M. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative
Democracy, Oxford University, Oxford, 2016.
[186] W. Wagner, W. West, T. McGarity, L. Peters, Deliberative rulemaking: An
empirical study of participation in three agency programs, Admin. L. Rev. 73 (3)
(2021) 609–687.
[187] R. Lightbody, Evaluating the role of public hearings within deliberative
democracy: operationalizing the democratic standards as a framework. Journal of
deliberative, Democracy 20 (1) (2024), https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1454.
[188] L.L. Delina, Climate mobilizations and democracy: the promise of scaling
community energy transitions in a deliberative system, J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22
(1) (2020 Jan 2) 30–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1525287.
[189] E. Laes, L. Gorissen, F. Nevens, A comparison of energy transition governance in
Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, Sustainability 6 (3) (2014)
1129–1152, https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031129.
[190] M. Lockwood, C. Kuzemko, C. Mitchell, R. Hoggett, Historical institutionalism
and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: a research agenda, Environ.
Plan. C: Politics Space 35 (2) (2017) 312–333, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0263774X16660561.
[191] A. Jordan, D. Huitema, Policy innovation in a changing climate: sources, patterns
and effects, Glob. Environ. Chang. 29 (2014) 387–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2014.09.005.
[192] F. Fischer, Participatory governance: From theory to practice, in: D. Levi-Faur
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
New York, 2012, pp. 457–471.
[193] M. Set¨
al¨
a, Connecting deliberative Mini-publics to representative decision
making, Eur. J. Political Res. 56 (4) (2017) 846–863, https://doi.org/10.1111/
1475-6765.12207.
[194] J.W. Kuyper, F. Wolkenstein, Complementing and correcting representative
institutions: when and how to use mini-publics, Eur. J. Political Res. 58 (2) (2019)
656–675, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12306.
[195] J. Boswell, R. Dean, G. Smith, Integrating citizen deliberation into climate
governance: lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies, Public Adm.
101 (1) (2023) 182–200, https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12883.
[196] P. Maleki-Dizaji, N. Del Bufalo, M.-R. Di Nucci, M. Krug, Overcoming barriers to
the community acceptance of wind energy: lessons learnt from a comparative
analysis of best practice cases across Europe, Sustainability 12 (9) (2020) 3562,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093562.
[197] I. Aubert, Social inclusion, a challenge for deliberative democracy? Some
reections on Habermas’s political theory, Eur. J. Soc. Theory 24 (4) (2021)
448–466, https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020983781.
[198] J. Habermas, Also a History of Philosophy: The Occidental Constellation of Faith
and Knowledge, Polity Press, Hoboken, 2024.
[199] J. Habermas, Reections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of
the political public sphere, Theory Cult. Soc. 39 (4) (2022) 145–171, https://doi.
org/10.1177/02632764221112341.
[200] J. Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and
Deliberative Politics, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2023.
[201] S. Sillak, K. Borch, K. Sperling, Assessing co-creation in strategic planning for
urban energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 74 (2021) 101952, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101952.
[202] W. Linder, S. Mueller, Direct Democracy, in: W. Linder, S. Mueller (Eds.), Swiss
Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conict in Multicultural Societies, 4th ed.,
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021, pp. 119–165.
[203] M. Howlett, E. Lindquist, Policy analysis and governance: analytical and policy
styles in Canada, J. Comp. Policy Anal.: Res. Pract. 6 (3) (2004) 225–249.
[204] R. Salvino, M.T. Tasto, G.K. Turnbull, A direct test of direct democracy: New
England town meetings, Appl. Econ. 44 (18) (2012) 2393–2402.
[205] I. Stadelmann-Steffen, C. Dermont, Acceptance through inclusion? Political and
economic participation and the acceptance of local renewable energy projects in
Switzerland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 71 (2021 Jan 1) 101818.
[206] K. Langer, T. Decker, K. Menrad, Public participation in wind energy projects
located in Germany: which form of participation is the key to acceptance? Renew.
Energy 112 (2017) 63–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.021.
[207] J. Radtke, S.M. Saßmannshausen, N. Bohn, Windkraft in Nordrhein-Westfalen:
Einstellungen zu Akzeptanz, Beteiligung und Koniktl¨
osung, Universit¨
at Siegen,
Siegen, 2021 [June 28, 2022]; Available from, https://dspace.ub.uni-siegen.de/h
andle/ubsi/1997.
[208] G. Geissel, A. Michels, N. Silagadze, J. Schauman, K. Gr¨
onlund, Public
deliberation or popular votes? Measuring the performance of different types of
participatory Democracy, Representation 59 (4) (2023) 573–595, https://doi.
org/10.1080/00344893.2023.2213698.
[209] A. Kokkonen, J. Linde, Nativist attitudes and opportunistic support for
democracy, West Eur. Polit. 46 (1) (2023) 49–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01402382.2021.2007459.
[210] J. Le Maitre, Price or public participation? Community benets for onshore wind
in Ireland, Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 114
(2024) 103605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103605.
[211] S. Ruggiero, H. Busch, T. Hansen, A. Isakovic, Context and agency in urban
community energy initiatives: An analysis of six case studies from the Baltic Sea
region, Energy Policy 148 (2021) 111956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2020.111956.
[212] L. Gorro˜
no-Albizu, K. Sperling, S. Djørup, The past, present and uncertain future
of community energy in Denmark: critically reviewing and conceptualising
citizen ownership, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57 (2019) 101231, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2019.101231.
[213] M. Oteman, M. Wiering, J.-K. Helderman, The institutional space of community
initiatives for renewable energy: a comparative case study of the Netherlands,
Germany and Denmark, Energ. Sustain. Soc. 4 (1) (2014), https://doi.org/
10.1186/2192-0567-4-11.
[214] F. Hvelplund, P.A. Østergaard, N.I. Meyer, Incentives and barriers for wind power
expansion and system integration in Denmark, Energy Policy 107 (2017)
573–584, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.009.
[215] J. Krupa, Identifying barriers to aboriginal renewable energy deployment in
Canada, Energy Policy 42 (2012) 710–714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2011.12.051.
[216] L. Baker, P. Newell, J. Phillips, The political economy of energy transitions: the
case of South Africa, New Political Econ. 19 (6) (2014) 791–818, https://doi.org/
10.1080/13563467.2013.849674.
[217] G. Lupp, A. Zingraff-Hamed, J.J. Huang, A. Oen, S. Pauleit, Living labs—a concept
for co-designing nature-based solutions, Sustainability 13 (1) (2020) 188, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13010188.
[218] A. Mayer, Partisanship, politics, and the energy transition in the United States: a
critical review and conceptual framework, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 53 (2019) 85–88,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.022.
[219] F.W. Geels, F. Kern, G. Fuchs, N. Hinderer, G. Kungl, J. Mylan, et al., The
enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated typology and a
comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity
transitions (1990–2014), Res. Policy 45 (4) (2016) 896–913, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015.
[220] N. Balta-Ozkan, J. Yildirim, P.M. Connor, I. Truckell, P. Hart, Energy transition at
local level: analyzing the role of peer effects and socio-economic factors on UK
solar photovoltaic deployment, Energy Policy 148 (2021) 112004, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112004.
[221] T.J. Foxon, P.J. Perason, The UK low carbon energy transition. Prospects and
challenges, in: A. Bumpus, J. Tansey, B.L. Henríquez, C. Okereke (Eds.), Carbon
Governance, Climate Change and Business Transformation, Routledge, London,
2014, pp. 158–174.
[222] J. Barnes, Public participation in a West of England energy transition: Key
patterns and trends [May 30, 2024]; Available from, https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/si
tes/default/les/2022-10/public-participation-in-a-West-of-England-energy-
transition.pdf, 2019.
[223] P. Nanz, J. Steffek, Global governance, participation and the public sphere, Gov.
Oppos. 39 (2) (2004) 314–335, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-
7053.2004.00125.x.
[224] V. Jacquet, R. Does, The consequences of deliberative minipublics: systematic
overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions, Representation 57 (1) (2021)
131–141, https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1778513.
[225] B.K. Sovacool, An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to
climate and energy governance, Energy Policy 39 (6) (2011) 3832–3844, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.014.
[226] G.C. Homsy, Z. Liu, M.E. Warner, Multilevel governance: framing the integration
of top-down and bottom-up policymaking, Int. J. Public Adm. 42 (7) (2019)
572–582, https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1491597.
[227] J. Dirix, W. Peeters, J. Eyckmans, P.T. Jones, S. Sterckx, Strengthening bottom-up
and top-down climate governance, Clim. Pol. 13 (3) (2013) 363–383, https://doi.
org/10.1080/14693062.2013.752664.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
21
[228] J. Golub, Sovereignty and subsidiarity in EU environmental policy, Political Stud.
44 (4) (1996) 686–703, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01749.x.
[229] V. Cast´
an Broto (Ed.), Community Energy and Sustainable Energy Transitions,
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2024.
[230] B. Lennon, N. Dunphy, E. Sanvicente, Community acceptability and the energy
transition: a citizens’ perspective, Energy Sustain. Soc. 9 (35) (2019), https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13705-019-0218-z.
[231] A. Etzioni, Die Entdeckung des Gemeinwesens: Ansprüche, Verantwortlichkeiten
und das Programm des Kommunitarismus, Sch¨
affer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, 1995.
[232] R. Weymouth, J. Hartz-Karp, Deliberative collaborative governance as a
democratic reform to resolve wicked problems and improve trust, J. Econ. Soc.
Policy 17 (1) (2015) 4.
[233] B. Slee, Is there a case for community-based equity participation in Scottish on-
shore wind energy production? Gaps in evidence and research needs, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 540–549, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.08.064.
[234] C. Ansell, E. Sørensen, J. Torng, When governance theory meets democratic
theory: the potential contribution of Cocreation to democratic governance,
Perspect. Public Manag. Gov. 4 (4) (2021) 346–362, https://doi.org/10.1093/
ppmgov/gvab024.
[235] C.M. Hendriks, Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: the role of
institutional design, Eur. J. Political Res. 55 (1) (2016) 43–60, https://doi.org/
10.1111/1475-6765.12123.
[236] D. Oppold, O. Renn, Partizipative Klimapolitik: Wie die Integration von
Stakeholder- und Bürger*innenbeteiligung gelingen kann (online rst), dms 16
(1) (2023 Jul 13) 1–23.
[237] L. Holstenkamp, Community energy in Germany: From technology pioneers to
professionalisation under Uncertainty, in: F.H. Coenen, T. Hoppe (Eds.),
Renewable Energy Communities and the Low Carbon Energy Transition in
Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, CHam, 2021, pp. 119–152.
[238] G. D´
oci, B. Gotchev, When energy policy meets community: rethinking risk
perceptions of renewable energy in Germany and the Netherlands, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 22 (2016) 26–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.019.
[239] M. Krug, M.R. Di Nucci, M. Caldera, E. de Luca, Mainstreaming community
energy: is the renewable energy directive a driver for renewable energy
communities in Germany and Italy? Sustainability 14 (12) (2022) 7181, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14127181.
[240] V. Brummer, Community energy – benets and barriers: a comparative literature
review of community energy in the UK, Germany and the USA, the benets it
provides for society and the barriers it faces, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94
(2018) 187–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.013.
[241] A. Wierling, V.J. Schwanitz, J.P. Zeiß, C. Bout, C. Candelise, W. Gilcrease, et al.,
Statistical evidence on the role of energy cooperatives for the energy transition in
European countries, Sustainability 10 (9) (2018) 3339, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10093339.
[242] J. Radtke, D. Ohlhorst, Community energy in Germany – bowling alone in elite
clubs? Util. Policy 72 (2021) 101269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jup.2021.101269.
[243] J. Radtke, Community Energy in Germany: A Social Science Perspective, Springer
Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, 2023.
[244] J. Radtke, E. Drewing, E. Eichenauer, L. Holstenkamp, J.-H. Kamlage, F. Mey, et
al., Energy transition and civic engagement, in: O. Renn, F. Ulmer, A. Deckert
(Eds.), The Role of Public Participation in Energy Transitions, Academic Press,
London, San Diego, Cambridge, Kidlington, 2020, pp. 81–91.
[245] L. Holstenkamp, J. Radtke (Eds.), Handbuch Energiewende und Partizipation,
Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2018.
[246] A. Etzioni, The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic
Society, Prole Books, London, 1997.
[247] A. Fung, Afterword: Does deliberative Democracy have a role in our time of
political crisis? J. Deliberative Democr. 16 (1) (2020) 75–76, https://doi.org/
10.16997/jdd.407.
[248] S. Niemeyer, Deliberation and ecological democracy: from citizen to global
system, J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22 (1) (2020) 16–29, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2019.1661232.
[249] B. Verhees, R. Raven, F. Kern, A. Smith, The role of policy in shielding, nurturing
and enabling offshore wind in the Netherlands (1973–2013), Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 47 (2015) 816–829, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.036.
[250] K. van Kersbergen, B. Verbeek, Subsidiarity as a principle of governance in the
European Union, Comp. Eur. Polit. 2 (2) (2004) 142–162, https://doi.org/
10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110033.
[251] F. Bridoux, J.W. Stoelhorst, Stakeholder governance: solving the collective action
problems in joint value creation, AMR 47 (2) (2022) 214–236, https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.2019.0441.
[252] E.H. Klijn, Democratic legitimacy criteria in interactive governance and their
empirical application, in: J. Torng, P. Trianlieu (Eds.), Interactive Policy
Making, meta Governance and Democracy, ECPR Press, Colchester, 2011,
pp. 205–226.
[253] S. Low, L. Fritz, C.M. Baum, B.K. Sovacool, Public perceptions on carbon removal
from focus groups in 22 countries, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024) 3453, https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-024-47853-w.
[254] C. Medina-García, S. Nagarajan, L. Castillo-Vysokolan, E. B´
eatse, P. van den
Broeck, Innovative multi-actor collaborations as collective actors and
institutionalized spaces, in: The Case of Food Governance Transformation in
Leuven (Belgium), 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.788934 [April 25,
2024]; Available from.
[255] M.A. Sait, U. Chigbu, I. Hamiduddin, W. de Vries, Renewable energy as an
underutilised resource in Cities: Germany’s “Energiewende” and lessons for post-
Brexit Cities in the United Kingdom, Resources 8 (1) (2019) 7, https://doi.org/
10.3390/resources8010007.
[256] K. Zanudin, I. Ngah, S.H. Misnan, A Conceptual Paper: Collaborative Planning for
Community Empowerment in Urban Planning, in: International Conference on
Urban Design & Cities Planning (UDCP 2018), 2018, pp. 210–216.
[257] I. Mahmoud, E. Morello, D. Ludlow, G. Salvia, Co-creation pathways to inform
shared governance of urban living labs in practice: lessons from three European
projects, Front. Sustain. Cities 3 (2021) 690458.
[258] C. Schmelzle, E. Stollenwerk, Virtuous or vicious circle? Governance effectiveness
and legitimacy in areas of limited statehood, J. Interv. Statebuild. 12 (4) (2018)
449–467, https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1531649.
[259] S.P. Tuler, T. Webler, Controversy and consensus in the design of a consent-based
siting process for radioactive waste, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 95 (2023) 102906,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102906.
[260] T. Webler, S. Tuler, Unpacking the idea of democratic community consent-based
siting for energy infrastructure, J. Risk Res. 24 (1) (2021) 94–109, https://doi.
org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1843068.
[261] R. Lidskog, Siting conicts – democratic perspectives and political implications,
J. Risk Res. 8 (3) (2005) 187–206, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1366987042000175489.
[262] J. Khan, Local Politics of Renewable Energy: Project Planning, Siting Conicts and
Citizen Participation [Doctoral Thesis (Compilation)], Lund University, Lund,
2004. https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/portalles/portal/5573137/3972501.pdf.
[263] P. Devine-Wright, A. Peacock, Putting energy infrastructure into place: a
systematic review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 197 (2024) 114272, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.114272.
[264] A. Thomas, J.D. Erickson, Rethinking the geography of energy transitions: low
carbon energy pathways through energyshed design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 74
(2021) 101941, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101941.
[265] S. Carley, D.M. Konisky, Z. Atiq, N. Land, Energy infrastructure, NIMBYism, and
public opinion: a systematic literature review of three decades of empirical survey
literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020) 93007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/ab875d.
[266] D.M. Konisky, S. Ansolabehere, S. Carley, Proximity, NIMBYism, and public
support for energy infrastructure, Public Opin. Q. 84 (2) (2020) 391–418, https://
doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa025.
[267] J. Crawford, D. Bessette, S.B. Mills, Rallying the anti-crowd: organized opposition,
democratic decit, and a potential social gap in large-scale solar energy, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 90 (2022) 102597, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102597.
[268] D. van der Horst, NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the
politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies, Energy Policy
35 (5) (2007) 2705–2714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.012.
[269] M. Cashmore, D. Rudolph, S.V. Larsen, H. Nielsen, International experiences with
opposition to wind energy siting decisions: lessons for environmental and social
appraisal, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62 (7) (2019) 1109–1132, https://doi.org/
10.1080/09640568.2018.1473150.
[270] U. Pesch, Elusive publics in energy projects: the politics of localness and energy
democracy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 56 (2019) 101225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2019.101225.
[271] P. Devine-Wright, Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for
understanding public perceptions of wind energy, Wind Energy 8 (2) (2005)
125–139, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.124.
[272] P. Devine-Wright, Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place
identity in explaining place-protective action, J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.
19 (6) (2009) 426–441, https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004.
[273] P. Devine-Wright, L. Pinto de Carvalho, A. Di Masso, M. Lewicka, L. Manzo, D.
R. Williams, “Re-placed” - reconsidering relationships with place and lessons from
a pandemic, J. Environ. Psychol. 72 (2020) 101514, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2020.101514.
[274] P. Devine-Wright, Decarbonisation of industrial clusters: a place-based research
agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 91 (2022) 102725, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2022.102725.
[275] S. Ryder, C. Walker, S. Batel, H. Devine-Wright, P. Devine-Wright, F. Sherry-
Brennan, Do the ends justify the means? Problematizing social acceptance and
instrumentally-driven community engagement in proposed energy projects,
Socio. Ecol. Pract. Res. 5 (2) (2023) 189–204, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-
023-00148-8.
[276] P. Devine-Wright, S. Ryder, Place-based reexivity for just energy social science,
Nat. Energy 9 (1) (2024) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01423-4.
[277] C. Walker, S. Ryder, J.P. Roux, Z. Chateau, P. Devine-Wright, Contested scales of
democratic decision-making and procedural justice in energy transitions, in:
M. Nadesan, M.J. Pasqualetti, J. Keahey (Eds.), Energy Democracies for
Sustainable Futures, Academic Press, London, San Diego, Cambridge, Kidlington,
2023, pp. 317–326.
[278] J. Fiander, C. Walker, I.H. Rowlands, P. Devine-Wright, C. Wilson, I. Soutar, et al.,
Energy democracy, public participation, and support for local energy system
change in Canada, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113 (2024) 103526, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2024.103526.
[279] O. Renn, Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach, Futures 130
(2021) 102744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102744.
[280] J.M. Prado-Lorenzo, I. María, I. S´
anchez, The Effect of Participation in the
Development of Local Agenda 21 in the European Union, International
Conference of Territorial Intelligence, In, 2007, pp. 523–546.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
22
[281] T. Webler, S. Tuler, Four decades of public participation in risk decision making,
Risk Anal. 41 (3) (2021) 503–518, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13250.
[282] D. Dodman, B. Hayward, M. Pelling, V. Cast´
an Broto, W. Chow, E. Chu,
R. Dawson, et al., Cities, Settlements and Key Infrastructure, in:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ed.), Climate Change 2022 –
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023, pp. 907–1040.
[283] F. Creutzig, P. Roy, P. Devine-Wright, J. Diaz-Jos´
e, F.W. Geels, N. Grubler, et al.,
Demand, Services and Social Aspects of Mitigation, in: Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, editor. Climate Change 2022 – Mitigation of Climate Change:
Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2023, pp. 503–612.
[284] L. Meuleman, Public administration and governance for the SDGs. Navigating
between Change and Stability, Sustainability 13 (11) (2021 May 24) 5914,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115914.
[285] F. Belaïd, A. Al-Sarihi, Saudi Arabia energy transition in a post-paris agreement
era: An analysis with a multi-level perspective approach, Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 67
(2024 Jan 1) 102086.
[286] M. Al-Saidi, Energy transition in Saudi Arabia: Giant leap or necessary adjustment
for a large carbon economy? Energy Rep. 8 (2022 Jun 1) 312–318.
[287] M. Korsnes, Fragmentation, Centralisation and Policy Learning: An Example from
China’s Wind Industry, J. Curr. Chin. Aff. 43 (3) (2014 Sep 1) 175–205.
[288] A. Li, Centralization or decentralization: Divergent paths of governing offshore
wind between China and Japan, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 84 (2022 Feb 1) 102426.
[289] Y. Cai, Y. Aoyama, Fragmented authorities, institutional misalignments, and
challenges to renewable energy transition: A case study of wind power
curtailment in China, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41 (2018 Jul 1) 71–79.
[290] E. Palazuelos, C. García, China’s energy transition: features and drivers, Post-
Communist Econ. 20 (4) (2008 Dec 1) 461–481.
[291] S. Zhang, P. Andrews-Speed, State versus market in China’s low-carbon energy
transition: An institutional perspective, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66 (2020 Aug 1)
101503.
[292] J. Wu, C. Zuidema, G. de Roo, Climate policy integration on energy transition: An
analysis on Chinese cases at the local scale, Cities 120 (2022 Jan 1) 103469.
[293] C. Chen, B. Xue, G. Cai, H. Thomas, S. Stückrad, Comparing the energy transitions
in Germany and China: Synergies and recommendations, Energy Rep. 5 (2019
Nov 1) 1249–1260.
[294] X. Su, J. Tan, Regional energy transition path and the role of government support
and resource endowment in China, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 174 (2023 Mar 1)
113150.
[295] N. Kinossian, K. Morgan, Authoritarian state capitalism: Spatial planning and the
megaproject in Russia, Environ. Plan. A 55 (3) (2023 May 1) 655–672.
[296] P. Rutland, Russia as an Energy Superpower, New Political Econ. 13 (2) (2008 Jun
1) 203–210.
[297] T. Mitrova, Y. Melnikov, Energy transition in Russia, Energy Transit. 3 (1) (2019
Dec 1) 73–80.
[298] J. Johannesson, D. Clowes, Energy Resources and Markets – Perspectives on the
Russia–Ukraine War, Eur. Rev. 30 (1) (2022 Feb) 4–23.
[299] M.C. LaBelle, Energy as a weapon of war: Lessons from 50 years of energy
interdependence, Glob. Policy 14 (3) (2023) 531–547.
[300] L. Li, A. Taeihagh, An in-depth analysis of the evolution of the policy mix for the
sustainable energy transition in China from 1981 to 2020, Applied Energy 263
(2020 April) 114611.
[301] N.D. Woods, Federalism and the states, in: D.M. Konisky (Ed.), Handbook of US
Environmental Policy [Internet], Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020, pp. 79–92
[cited 2024 Sep 10].
[302] T.D. Peterson, A.Z. Rose, Reducing conicts between climate policy and energy
policy in the US: The important role of the states, Energy Policy Mar 1;34 (5)
(2006) 619–631.
[303] M.A. Delmas, M.J. Montes-Sancho, U.S. state policies for renewable energy:
Context and effectiveness, Energy Policy 39 (5) (2011 May 1) 2273–2288.
[304] L.C. Stokes, Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean
Energy and Climate Policy in the American States, Oxford University Press, 2020.
[305] S. Carley, C. Engle, D.M. Konisky, An analysis of energy justice programs across
the United States, Energy Policy 152 (2021 May 1) 112219.
[306] G. Weber, I. Cabras, The transition of Germany’s energy production, green
economy, low-carbon economy, socio-environmental conicts, and equitable
society, J. Clean. Prod. 167 (2017 Nov 20) 1222–1231.
[307] R.L. Ibrahim, T.S. Adebayo, A.A. Awosusi, K.B. Ajide, A.O. Adewuyi, F.
O. Bolarinwa, Investigating the asymmetric effects of renewable energy-carbon
neutrality nexus: Can technological innovation, trade openness, and transport
services deliver the target for Germany? Energy Environ. 35 (1) (2024) 185–206.
[308] J. Grafstr¨
om, P. S¨
oderholm, E. Gawel, P. Lehmann, S. Strunz, Government support
to renewable energy R&D: drivers and strategic interactions among EU Member
States, Econ. Innov. New Technol. 32 (1) (2023 Jan 2) 1–24.
[309] T. Wiertz, L. Kuhn, A. Mattissek, A turn to geopolitics: Shifts in the German
energy transition discourse in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 98 (2023 Apr 1) 103036.
[310] T.S. Schmidt, N. Schmid, S. Sewerin, Policy goals, partisanship and paradigmatic
change in energy policy – analyzing parliamentary discourse in Germany over 30
years, Clim. Pol. 19 (6) (2019 Jul 3) 771–786.
[311] J. Radtke, Beer D. L¨
ow, Legitimizing sustainability transitions through
stakeholder participation: Evaluating the Coal Commission in Germany, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 116 (2024 Oct 1) 103667.
[312] J. Radtke, M. David, How Germany is phasing out lignite: insights from the Coal
Commission and local communities, Energy Sustain. Soc. 14 (1) (2024 Jan 11) 7.
[313] A. Leipprand, C. Flachsland, M. Pahle, Energy transition on the rise: discourses on
energy future in the German parliament, Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research. 30 (3) (2017 Jul 3) 283–305.
[314] W. Fischer, Hake JFr, Kuckshinrichs W, Schr¨
oder T, Venghaus S., German energy
policy and the way to sustainability: Five controversial issues in the debate on the
“Energiewende”, Energy 115 (2016 Nov 15) 1580–1591.
[315] A. Leipprand, C. Flachsland, Regime destabilization in energy transitions: The
German debate on the future of coal, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40 (2018 Jun 1)
190–204.
[316] D. Wang, J. Mei, An advanced review of climate change mitigation policies in the
United States, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 208 (2024 Sep 1) 107718.
[317] T. Culhane, G. Hall, J.T. Roberts, Who delays climate action? Interest groups and
coalitions in state legislative struggles in the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
79 (2021 Sep 1) 102114.
[318] G. Hall, T. Culhane, J.T. Roberts, Climate coalitions and anti-coalitions: Lobbying
across state legislatures in the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113 (2024 Jul
1) 103562.
[319] A. Barichella, Climate Politics Under Biden: The Clean Energy Revolution,
Enhanced Cooperative Federalism and the ‘All-of-Government’ Approach, in:
A. Barichella (Ed.), Can Cities, States and Regions Save Our Planet? Transatlantic
Perspectives on Multilevel Climate Governance, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 2023, pp. 85–128. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-031-33936-3_3.
[320] L.C. Stokes, Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean
Energy and Climate Policy in the American States, Oxford University Press, 2020.
[321] T.D. Peterson, A.Z. Rose, Reducing conicts between climate policy and energy
policy in the US: The important role of the states, Energy Policy 34 (5) (2006 Mar
1) 619–631.
[322] M.A. Delmas, M.J. Montes-Sancho, U.S. state policies for renewable energy:
Context and effectiveness, Energy Policy 39 (5) (2011 May 1) 2273–2288.
[323] J.A. Basseches, R. Bromley-Trujillo, M.T. Boykoff, T. Culhane, G. Hall, N. Healy,
et al., Climate policy conict in the U.S. states: a critical review and way forward,
Clim. Chang. 170 (3) (2022) 32.
[324] N.D. Woods, Federalism and the states, in: D.M. Konisky (Ed.), Handbook of US
Environmental Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020, pp. 79–92.
[325] A.M. Eisenberg, Reviving Rural America, Cambridge University Press, 2024.
[326] T. Hogan, Closing the Urban-Rural Power Divide: Envisioning a United City-States
of America, Springer Nature, 2023.
[327] L.K. Ford, J. Bailey, Empowering Communities: How Electric Cooperatives
Transformed, Univ of South Carolina Press, Rural South Carolina, 2022.
[328] J.E.T. Bistline, M. Brown, M. Domeshek, C. Marcy, N. Roy, G. Blanford, et al.,
Power sector impacts of the Ination Reduction Act of 2022, Environ. Res. Lett.
19 (1) (2023 Nov) 014013.
[329] D.C. Steinberg, M. Brown, R. Wiser, P. Donohoo-Vallett, P. Gagnon, A. Hamilton,
et al., Evaluating Impacts of the Ination Reduction Act and Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law on the U.S. Power System. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2023 Mar. Report No.: NREL/TP-
6A20-85242.
[330] Z. Jiang, X. Jia, J. Liao, Natural resources, renewable energy, and healthcare
expenditure in the pursuit of sustainable development amidst ination reduction
act of 2022, Res. Policy 89 (2024 Feb 1) 104563.
[331] J. Bistline, G. Blanford, M. Brown, D. Burtraw, M. Domeshek, J. Farbes, et al.,
Emissions and energy impacts of the Ination Reduction Act, Science 380 (6652)
(2023 Jun 30) 1324–1327.
[332] H. Dyrhauge, J. Fairbrass, Danish nearshore wind energy policy: Exploring actors,
ideas, discursive processes and institutions via discursive institutionalism,
Environ. Policy Gov. 34 (3) (2024) 223–235.
[333] P.A. Østergaard, Sustainable Energy Planning and Management with PV, Waste
heat, positive energy districts and CO2 accounting, International Journal of
Sustainable Energy Planning and Management 41 (2024 Jun 19) 1–4.
[334] H. Yu, C. Bergaentzl´
e, S. Petrovi´
c, E.O. Ahlgren, F. Johnsson, Combining techno-
economic modeling and spatial analysis for heat planning in rural regions: A case
study of the Holbæk municipality in Denmark, Smart Energy. 14 (2024 May 1)
100144.
[335] J.K. Kirkegaard, D. Rudolph, S. Nyborg, T. Cronin, The landrush of wind energy,
its socio-material workings, and its political consequences: On the entanglement
of land and wind assemblages in Denmark, Environment and Planning C: Politics
and Space. 41 (3) (2023 May 1) 548–566.
[336] V. Dobravec, N. Matak, C. Sakulin, G. Krajaˇ
ci´
c, Multilevel governance energy
planning and policy: a view on local energy initiatives, Energy Sustain. Soc. 11 (1)
(2021 Jan 6) 2.
[337] K. Johansen, Blowing in the wind: A brief history of wind energy and wind power
technologies in Denmark, Energy Policy 152 (2021 May 1) 112139.
[338] S. Ben Amer, J.S. Gregg, K. Sperling, D. Drysdale, Too complicated and
impractical? An exploratory study on the role of energy system models in
municipal decision-making processes in Denmark, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020
Dec 1) 101673.
[339] N. Bertelsen, M. Caussarieu, U.R. Petersen, P. Karnøe, Energy plans in practice:
The making of thermal energy storage in urban Denmark, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 79
(2021 Sep 1) 102178.
[340] J. Fischer, D. Alimi, J. Knieling, C. Camara, Stakeholder Collaboration in Energy
Transition: Experiences from Urban Testbeds in the Baltic Sea Region,
Sustainability 12 (22) (2020 Jan) 9645.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
23
[341] P. Bocquillon, A. Evrard, Energy Governance in France: A Nuclearized Socio-
technical Regime “in transition”? in: M. Knodt, J. Kemmerzell (Eds.), Handbook
of Energy Governance in Europe Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022,
pp. 647–666. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43250-8_10.
[342] O. Labussi`
ere, A. Nadaï, Wind Power Landscapes in France: Landscape and
Energy Decentralization, in: M. Frolova, M.J. Prados, A. Nadaï (Eds.), Renewable
Energies and European Landscapes: Lessons from Southern European Cases,
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2015, pp. 81–93. Available from: https://doi.or
g/10.1007/978-94-017-9843-3_5.
[343] M. Dreyfus, A. Suwa, Local Energy Governance: Opportunities and Challenges for
Renewable and Decentralised Energy in France and Japan, Taylor & Francis,
2022.
[344] S. Sedlacek, T. T¨
otzer, D. Lund-Durlacher, Collaborative governance in energy
regions – Experiences from an Austrian region, J. Clean. Prod. 256 (2020 May 20)
120256.
[345] Achmad, A. Djaenuri, T. Supriyatna, M. Hamdi, Collaborative Governance in
Renewable Energy Utilization, IJSOC 2 (1) (2020 Mar 19) 204–2012.
[346] M. Gollagher, J. Hartz-Karp, The Role of Deliberative Collaborative Governance
in Achieving Sustainable Cities, Sustainability 5 (6) (2013 Jun) 2343–2366.
[347] R. Dowling, P. McGuirk, S. Maalsen, Multiscalar governance of urban energy
transitions in Australia: The cases of Sydney and Melbourne, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
44 (2018 Oct 1) 260–267.
[348] D.Y. Kim, Energy Transition in South Korea: Energy Democracy, Collaborative
Governance or Conict Expansion? The Korean Governance Review 27 (2021 Apr
2) 75–113.
[349] J. Sol, M.M. van der Wal, P.J. Beers, A.E.J. Wals, Reframing the future: the role of
reexivity in governance networks in sustainability transitions, Environ. Educ.
Res. 24 (9) (2018 Sep 2) 1383–1405.
[350] T. Hoppe, M. Miedema, A Governance Approach to Regional Energy Transition:
Meaning, Conceptualization and Practice, Sustainability 12 (3) (2020 Jan) 915.
[351] R. Kemp, D. Loorbach, Transition Management: A Reexive Governance
Approach, in: J.P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, R. Kemp (Eds.), Reexive Governance for
Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006, pp. 103–130.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847200266.00015.
[352] J. Biehl, L. Missbach, F. Riedel, R. Stemmle, J. Jüchter, J. Weber, et al., Wicked
facets of the German energy transition – examples from the electricity, heating,
transport, and industry sectors, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 42 (1) (2023 Dec 14)
1128–1181.
[353] V. Brendler, Who shapes the energy transition? National regulatory styles and
societal involvement in renewable energy policy, Z Politikwiss. 33 (2) (2023 Jun
1) 325–354.
[354] K.S. Rogge, B. Puger, F.W. Geels, Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical
scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system
(2010–2050), Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 151 (2020 Feb 1) 119259.
[355] R. Quitzow, S. Thielges, The German energy transition as soft power, Rev. Int.
Polit. Econ. 29 (2) (2022 Mar 4) 598–623.
[356] I. Takaes Santos, Confronting governance challenges of the resource nexus
through reexivity: A cross-case comparison of biofuels policies in Germany and
Brazil, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 65 (2020 Jul 1) 101464.
[357] J.P. Voß, R. Kemp, Sustainability and reexive governance: introduction, in: J.
P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, R. Kemp (Eds.), Reexive Governance for Sustainable
Development, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006, pp. 3–30.
[358] J. Meckling, Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition,
Environ. Plan C: Politics Space 37 (2) (2019 Mar 1) 317–338.
[359] G. Verbong, F. Geels, The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-
technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004),
Energy Policy 35 (2) (2007) 1025–1037.
[360] H.N.M. H¨
olsgens, Energy Transitions in the Netherlands: Sustainability
Challenges in a Historical and Comparative Perspective, University of Groningen,
SOM research school, Groningen, 2016.
[361] F. Kern, A. Smith, Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy
transition policy in the Netherlands, Energy Policy Nov 1;36 (11) (2008)
4093–4103.
[362] I. Todd, C. Bulder, D. McCauley, M.K. Burns, Assessing the post-COVID prospects
for the energy transition in the Netherlands and the UK, using a policy barriers
approach, Local Environ. Jun 3;27 (6) (2022) 712–727.
[363] B. Oldenbroek, I. Psarra, T. Van Der Schoor, C. Tjahja, Energy Transition in
Northern Netherlands: seeking a balance between top-down and bottom-up
initiatives, Open Res Europe. Jul 9 (4) (2024) 139.
[364] B. Warbroek, B. Holmatov, J. Vinke-de Kruijf, M. Arentsen, M. Shakeri, C. de
Boer, et al., From sectoral to integrative action situations: an institutional
perspective on the energy transition implementation in the Netherlands, Sustain.
Sci. Jan 1;18 (1) (2023) 97–114.
[365] J.P. Voß, B. Bornemann, The Politics of Reexive Governance: Challenges for
Designing Adaptive Management and Transition Management, Ecol. Soc. 16 (2)
(2011).
[366] J. van Dijk, A.J. Wieczorek, A. Ligtvoet, Regional capacity to govern the energy
transition: The case of two Dutch energy regions, Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions Sep 1 (44) (2022) 92–109.
[367] R. Kemp, J. Rotmans, D. Loorbach, Assessing the Dutch Energy Transition Policy:
How Does it Deal with Dilemmas of Managing Transitions? J. Environ. Policy
Plan. 9 (3–4) (2007 Sep) 315–331.
[368] M. Gerritsen, H.J. Kooij, M. Groenleer, E. van der Krabben, To See, or Not to See,
That Is the Question: Studying Dutch Experimentalist Energy Transition
Governance through an Evolutionary Lens, Sustainability 14 (3) (2022 Jan) 1540.
[369] T.S.G.H. Rodhouse, U. Pesch, E.H.W.J. Cuppen, A.F. Correlj´
e, Public agency and
responsibility in energy governance: A Q study on diverse imagined publics in the
Dutch heat transition, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Jul 1 (77) (2021) 102046.
[370] J. Grin, J. Rotmans, J. Schot, Transitions to Sustainable Development: New
Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, Routledge, 2010.
[371] A. Lang, Collaborative Governance in Health and Technology Policy: The Use and
Effects of Procedural Policy Instruments, Administration & Society 51 (2) (2019
Feb 1) 272–298.
[372] A. Proka, D. Loorbach, M. Hisschem¨
oller, Leading from the Niche: Insights from a
Strategic Dialogue of Renewable Energy Cooperatives in The Netherlands,
Sustainability 10 (11) (2018 Nov) 4106.
[373] R.P. van Leeuwen, J.B. de Wit, G.J.M. Smit, Review of urban energy transition in
the Netherlands and the role of smart energy management, Energy Convers.
Manag. 150 (2017 Oct 15) 941–948.
[374] E.D. Rasch, M. K¨
ohne, Practices and imaginations of energy justice in transition. A
case study of the Noordoostpolder, the Netherlands, Energy Policy 107 (2017 Aug
1) 607–614.
[375] C.W. Kraaijvanger, T. Verma, N. Doorn, J.E. Goncalves, Does the sun shine for all?
Revealing socio-spatial inequalities in the transition to solar energy in The Hague,
The Netherlands, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 104 (2023 Oct 1) 103245.
[376] H. Lelieveldt, W. Schram, Where are the citizens? Unravelling the lopsided nature
of stakeholder participation in the Dutch regional energy transition, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 96 (2023 Feb 1) 102925.
[378] L.M. Lutz, D.J. Lang, H. Von Wehrden, Facilitating Regional Energy Transition
Strategies: Toward a Typology of Regions, Sustainability 9 (9) (2017 Sep) 1560.
[379] B. Guler, E. Çelebi, J. Nathwani, A ‘Regional Energy Hub’ for achieving a low-
carbon energy transition, Energy Policy 113 (2018 Feb 1) 376–385.
[380] D. Süsser, M. D¨
oring, B.M.W. Ratter, Harvesting energy: Place and local
entrepreneurship in community-based renewable energy transition, Energy Policy
101 (2017 Feb 1) 332–341.
[381] P. De Pascali, A. Bagaini, Energy Transition and Urban Planning for Local
Development. A Critical Review of the Evolution of Integrated Spatial and Energy
Planning, Energies 12 (1) (2019 Jan) 35.
[382] R. Leonhardt, B. Noble, G. Poelzer, P. Fitzpatrick, K. Belcher, G. Holdmann,
Advancing local energy transitions: A global review of government instruments
supporting community energy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 83 (2022 Jan 1) 102350.
[383] I. Otamendi-Irizar, O. Grijalba, A. Arias, C. Pennese, R. Hern´
andez, How can local
energy communities promote sustainable development in European cities? Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 84 (2022 Feb 1) 102363.
[384] E. Derkenbaeva, S. Halleck Vega, G.J. Hofstede, E. van Leeuwen, Positive energy
districts: Mainstreaming energy transition in urban areas, Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 153 (2022 Jan 1) 111782.
[385] J. van der Leer, A. Calv´
en, W. Glad, P. Femenías, K. Sernhed, Energy systems in
sustainability-proled districts in Sweden: A literature review and a socio-
technical ecology approach for future research, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 101 (2023
Jul 1) 103118.
[386] J. Große, C. Fertner, N.B. Groth, Urban Structure, Energy and Planning: Findings
from Three Cities in Sweden, Finland and Estonia, Urban Plan. 1 (1) (2016 Mar 4)
24–40.
[387] A. Olsson, E. Rodriguez, A. Hansson, S. Jansson, M. Fridahl, Forerunner city or
net-zero opportunist? Carbon dioxide removal in Stockholm, residual emissions
and risks of mitigation deterrence, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113 (2024 Jul 1) 103567.
[388] M. Mangold, M. ¨
Osterbring, H. Wallbaum, L. Thuvander, P. Femenias, Socio-
economic impact of renovation and energy retrotting of the Gothenburg
building stock, Energy Build. 123 (2016 Jul 1) 41–49.
[389] D. Enarsson, J.B. Hinton, S. Borgstr¨
om, Grassroots initiatives transforming cities
toward post-growth futures: Insights from the collaborative economy movement
in Gothenburg, Sweden, J. Clean. Prod. 441 (2024 Feb 15) 140824.
[390] P. Sp¨
ath, H. Rohracher, ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional
discourses on socio-technical futures, Res. Policy 39 (4) (2010 May 1) 449–458.
[391] C.E. Hoicka, J. Lowitzsch, M.C. Brisbois, A. Kumar, L. Ramirez Camargo,
Implementing a just renewable energy transition: Policy advice for transposing
the new European rules for renewable energy communities, Energy Policy 156
(2021 Sep 1) 112435.
[392] M. Naumann, D. Rudolph, Conceptualizing rural energy transitions: Energizing
rural studies, ruralizing energy research, J. Rural Stud. 73 (2020 Jan 1) 97–104.
[393] F. Rioux-Gobeil, A. Thomassin, A just energy transition for Indigenous peoples:
From ideal deliberation to fairness in Canada and Australia, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
114 (2024 Aug 1) 103593.
[394] S.M. Segovia-Tzompa, I. Casimero, M.G. Apagüe˜
no, When the past meets the
future: Latin American Indigenous futures, transitional justice and global energy
governance, Futures 163 (2024 Oct 1) 103438.
[395] S.J. Barrag´
an-Contreras, Towards more pluralistic energy justice frameworks, in:
S Bouzarovski, S Fuller, T Reames (Eds.), Handbook on Energy Justice, Edward
Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp. 240–252.
[396] P. Romero-Lankao, N. Rosner, C. Brandtner, C. Rea, A. Mejia-Montero, F. Pilo, et
al., A framework to centre justice in energy transition innovations, Nat. Energy 8
(11) (2023 Nov) 1192–1198.
[397] A.P. Muyasyaroh, A.P. Muyasyaroh, ‘Just’ access to electricity: Energy justice in
Indonesia’s rural electrication (LISDES) program, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ.
Sci. 1199 (1) (2023 Jul) 012015.
[398] I. Suboticki, S. Heidenreich, M. Ryghaug, T.M. Skjølsvold, Fostering justice
through engagement: A literature review of public engagement in energy
transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 99 (2023 May 1) 103053.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
24
[399] R. Sidortsov, C. Katz, Combating power imbalance and arbitrariness through
procedural energy justice, in: S Bouzarovski, S Fuller, T Reames (Eds.), Handbook
on Energy Justice [Internet], Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp. 144–157.
[400] P. Swarnakar, M.K. Singh, Local Governance in Just Energy Transition: Towards a
Community-Centric Framework, Sustainability 14 (11) (2022 Jan) 6495.
[401] F.A. Ndi, Justice concerns in large-scale renewable energy projects: a case study
echoing the importance of procedural justice in wind energy development in
Kenya, Energ. Sustain. Soc. 14 (1) (2024 Aug 2) 47.
[402] Z. Hu, When energy justice encounters authoritarian environmentalism: The case
of clean heating energy transitions in rural China, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020
Dec 1) 101771.
[403] A. Newsholme, Developing a circular economy at the regional scale: a case study
of stakeholders in North Humberside, England and Styria, Austria, University of
Hull, 2023.
[404] C.J. van Riper, A. Thiel, M. Penker, M. Braito, A.C. Landon, J.M. Thomsen, et al.,
Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework,
Ecol. Soc. 23 (3) (2018).
[405] K. Knickel, A. Almeida, F. Galli, K. Hausegger-Nestelberger, B. Goodwin-Hawkins,
M. Hrabar, et al., Transitioning towards a Sustainable Wellbeing
Economy—Implications for Rural–Urban Relations, Land 10 (5) (2021 May) 512.
[406] M. Narodoslawsky, G. Stoeglehner, Planning for Local and Regional Energy
Strategies with the Ecological Footprint, J. Environ. Policy Plan. 12 (4) (2010 Dec
1) 363–379.
[407] C. Kettner, D. Kletzan-Slamanig, Climate Policy Integration on the National and
Regional Level: A Case Study for Austria and Styria, Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 8
(4) (2018 Jul 16) 259–269.
[408] M. Sarrica, M. Richter, S. Thomas, I. Graham, B.M. Mazzara, Social approaches to
energy transition cases in rural Italy, Indonesia and Australia: Iterative
methodologies and participatory epistemologies, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018
Nov 1) 287–296.
[409] S. Axon, J. Morrissey, Just energy transitions? Social inequities, vulnerabilities
and unintended consequences, Buildings & Cities 1 (1) (2020 Jul 14).
[410] I. Beauchampet, B. Walsh, Energy citizenship in the Netherlands: The
complexities of public engagement in a large-scale energy transition, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 76 (2021 Jun 1) 102056.
[411] P. Sp¨
ath, H. Rohracher, Local Demonstrations for Global Transitions—Dynamics
across Governance Levels Fostering Socio-Technical Regime Change Towards
Sustainability, Eur. Plan. Stud. 20 (3) (2012 Mar) 461–479.
[412] J. Rutherford, O. Coutard, Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes and
Politics of Socio-technical Change, Urban Stud. 51 (7) (2014 May 1) 1353–1377.
[413] T. Hoppe, A. Graf, B. Warbroek, I. Lammers, I. Lepping, Local Governments
Supporting Local Energy Initiatives: Lessons from the Best Practices of Saerbeck
(Germany) and Lochem (The Netherlands), Sustainability 7 (2) (2015 Feb)
1900–1931.
[414] M. van Staden, The Sustainable Energy Transition Cities and Local Governments
in Focus, in: TS Uyar (Ed.), Accelerating the Transition to a 100% Renewable
Energy Era [Internet], Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020,
pp. 155–168.
[415] O. Bayulgen, Localizing the energy transition: Town-level political and socio-
economic drivers of clean energy in the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62
(2020 Apr 1) 101376.
[416] A.A. Adesanya, R.V. Sidortsov, C. Schelly, Act locally, transition globally:
Grassroots resilience, local politics, and ve municipalities in the United States
with 100% renewable electricity, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 67 (2020 Sep 1) 101579.
[417] N.J.L. Rogers, V.M. Adams, J.A. Byrne, Agenda-setting and policy leadership for
municipal climate change adaptation, Environ. Sci. Policy 161 (2024 Nov 1)
103869.
[418] J. Suitner, W. Haider, S. Philipp, Social innovation for regional energy transition?
An agency perspective on transformative change in non-core regions, Regional
Studies 57 (8) (2023 Aug 3) 1498–1510.
[419] L. Sandmann, E. Bülbül, R. Casta˜
no-Rosa, F. Hanke, K. Großmann, R. Guyet, et al.,
The European Green Deal and its translation into action: Multilevel governance
perspectives on just transition, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 115 (2024 Sep 1) 103659.
[420] S. Leonhardt, T. Nusser, J. G¨
orres, S. Rosinger, G. Stryi-Hipp, M. Eckhard,
Innovations and Challenges of the Energy Transition in Smart City Districts,
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2023, p. 730.
[421] B. Slee, Collaborative Action, Policy Support and Rural Sustainability Transitions
in Advanced Western Economies: The Case of Scotland, Sustainability 16 (2)
(2024 Jan) 870.
[422] K. Standal, M.D. Leiren, I. Alonso, I. Azevedo, I. Kudrenickis, P. Maleki-Dizaji, et
al., Can renewable energy communities enable a just energy transition? Exploring
alignment between stakeholder motivations and needs and EU policy in Latvia,
Norway, Portugal and Spain, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 106 (2023 Dec 1) 103326.
[423] A. Escario-Chust, F. Vogelzang, J. Peris-Blanes, G. Palau-Salvador, S. Segura-
Calero, Can southern Europe lead an urban energy transition? Insights from the
energy transition roundtable in Valencia, Spain, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Jun 1 (100)
(2023) 103047.
[424] R. McMaster, B. Noble, G. Poelzer, Assessing local capacity for community
appropriate sustainable energy transitions in northern and remote indigenous
communities, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Mar 1 (191) (2024) 114232.
[425] A. Barichella, Cities as catalysts: Multilevel climate governance between Boston
and Massachusetts, in: A. Barichella (Ed.), Can Cities, States and Regions Save our
Planet? Transatlantic Perspectives on Multilevel Climate Governance, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2023, pp. 277–337.
[426] R.C. Brears, The green economy and the water-energy-food Nexus in
Massachusetts, in: R.C. Brears (Ed.), The Green Economy and the Water-Energy-
Food Nexus, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023, pp. 167–197.
[427] Massachusetts Executive Ofce of Energy and Environmental Affairs,
Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030. Boston, MA,
2022 (Available from: https://www.mass.gov/doc/clean-energy-and-climate-pl
an-for-2025-and-2030/download).
[428] A. Hoek Spaans, L. Skinner, A. Raman, H. Moskowitz, I. Packman, M. Shetler, et
al., Building the Clean Energy Commonwealth: A Climate Jobs Roadmap for
Massachusetts [cited 2024 Sep 10]; Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/18
13/115198, 2024.
[429] P.M. DeMarco (Ed.), ReImagine Appalachia: Healing the Land and Empowering
the People, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024 (AESS Interdisciplinary
Environmental Studies and Sciences Series).).
[430] A.L. Smith, Equalizing Power: Ireland and the Rapid Transition to a Sustainable
Energy Future for Europe [Internet], University of Delaware, 2020 [cited 2024
Sep 11]. Available from: https://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/28578.
[431] M. Greene, F. Fahy, Steering demand? Exploring the intersection of policy,
practice and lives in energy systems change in Ireland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Mar 1
(61) (2020) 101331.
[432] R. Lowes, C. Mitchell, Energy Governance for the Northern Ireland Energy
Transition, University of Exeter Energy Policy Group, 2021 Mar. Available from:
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/125035.
[433] C. McGookin, T. Mac Uidhir, ´
O. Gallach´
oir, B, Byrne E., Doing things differently:
bridging community concerns and energy system modelling with a
transdisciplinary approach in rural Ireland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Jul 1 (89) (2022)
102658.
[434] I. Kurniawan, R. Ichwani, R. Fionasari, A. Batubara, A. Huda, Indonesia’s
renewable energy outlook: what to expect in the future renewable energy of
Indonesia, A Brief Review. Elkawnie: Journal of Islamic Science and Technology.
Dec 31;8 (2) (2022) 298–313.
[435] B.P. Resosudarmo, J.F. Rezki, Y. Effendi, Prospects of energy transition in
Indonesia, Bull. Indones. Econ. Stud. May 4;59 (2) (2023) 149–177.
[436] L.D. Hersaputri, R. Yeganyan, C. Cannone, F. Plazas-Ni˜
no, S. Osei-Owusu,
Y. Kountouris, et al., Reducing fossil fuel dependence and exploring just energy
transition pathways in Indonesia using OSeMOSYS (open-source energy
modelling system), Climate Mar;12 (3) (2024) 37.
[437] L.T. Christensen, A. Suharsono, Achieving a just energy transition in Indonesia.
International institute for, Sustain. Dev. (2022).
[438] A. Sekaringtias, B. Verrier, J. Cronin, Untangling the socio-political knots: a
systems view on Indonesia’s inclusive energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Jan
1 (95) (2023) 102911.
[439] N. Loy, I. Rachmawati, J. Susilo, B. Sobirov, M.T. Multazam, H. Ku, A. Taubayev,
Materiality and just energy transition in Indonesia, in: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Advanced Research in Social and Economic Science
(ICARSE 2023), Atlantis Press SARL, Paris, 2024, pp. 628–637.
[440] M. Yuniza, D. Salim, H. Triyana, M. Triatmodjo, Revisiting just energy transition
in Indonesia energy transition policy, The Journal of World Energy Law &
Business. Apr 1;17 (2) (2024) 118–127.
[441] A. Jindal, G. Shrimali, B. Gangwani, R.B. Lall, Financing just energy transitions in
Southeast Asia: application of the just transition transaction to Indonesia,
Vietnam, and Philippines, Energy Sustain. Dev. Aug 1 (81) (2024) 101472.
[442] L. Elliott, A.B. Setyowati, Toward a socially just transition to low carbon
development: the case of Indonesia, Asian Affairs Aug 7;51 (4) (2020) 875–894.
[443] A.B. Setyowati, J. Quist, Contested transition? Exploring the politics and process
of regional energy planning in Indonesia, Energy Policy Jun 1 (165) (2022)
112980.
[444] A. Fünfgeld, Just energy? Structures of energy (in)justice and the Indonesian coal
sector, in: T. Jafry, M. Mikulewicz, K. Helwig (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of
Climate Justice, Routledge, 2018, pp. 222–236.
[445] A.B. Setyowati, Mitigating inequality with emissions? Exploring energy justice
and nancing transitions to low carbon energy in Indonesia, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
Jan 1 (71) (2021) 101817.
[446] P. Djatmika, P. Listiningrum, T.B. Sumarno, D.F. Mahira, C.P.M. Sianipar, Just
transition in biofuel development towards low-carbon economy: multi-actor
perspectives on policies and practices in Indonesia, Energies Jan;17 (1) (2024)
141.
[447] S.A. Grano, Environmental Governance in Taiwan: A New Generation of Activists
and Stakeholders, Routledge, London, 2015, p. 222.
[448] M.F. Fan, Energy justice and deliberative democratisation: reection on
indigenous territory governance in Taiwan, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. Oct 14;67
(12) (2024) 2955–2971.
[449] G. Curran, Community renewable energy and collaborative governance: Social
entrepreneurialism at the local level in Australia, in: Civic Engagement,
Community-Based Initiatives and Governance Capacity. Routledge, 2020.
[450] K.T. Chou, H.M. Liou, Climate change governance in Taiwan: The transitional
gridlock by a high-carbon regime, in: Climate Change Governance in Asia.
Routledge, 2020.
[451] K.T. Chou (Ed.), Energy Transition in East Asia: A Social Science Perspective.
Routledge, 2017.
[452] K.T. Chou, Tri-helix energy transition in Taiwan, in: K.T. Chou (Ed.), Energy
Transition in East Asia: A Social Science Perspective. Routledge, 2017, pp. 34–54.
[453] C. Bergero, M. Binsted, C.W. Chao, K.T. Chou, C.C. Wu, Y. Wei, et al., An
integrated assessment of a low coal low nuclear future energy system for Taiwan,
Energy and Climate Change. Dec 1 (2) (2021) 100022.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
25
[454] K.T. Chou, Hwa-Meei Liou, Climate change governance in Taiwan. The
transitional gridlock by a high-carbon regime, in: K.T. Chou, K. Hasegawa, D. Ku,
S.F. Kao (Eds.), Climate Change Governance in Asia. Routledge, 2020, pp. 27–56.
[455] S. Kerr, K. Johnson, S. Weir, Understanding community benet payments from
renewable energy development, Energy Policy Jun 1 (105) (2017) 202–211.
[456] M. Hekkenberg, H.M. Londo, S.M. Lensink, Background information on the
estimation of short-term effects of the energy agreement for sustainable growth
on renewable energy, Toelichting inschatting korte-termijneffecten
Energieakkoord op hernieuwbare energie Sep 1 (2013). Available from: https
://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/22125435.
J. Radtke and O. Renn
Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103743
26
