The governance role of local renewable energy cooperatives (LRECs) in facilitating the energy transition remains under-scrutinized in the scholarly literature. Such a gap is puzzling, since LRECs are a manifestation of the current decentralization movement and yield a promising governance contribution to a ‘just energy transition.’ This paper presents a study of the governance roles of LRECs in the province of Limburg, the Netherlands. Building on existing work on the cooperative movement and energy governance, we, first, develop a conceptual framework for our analysis. The framework is built around three key interactions shaping these governance roles, between (1) LRECs and their (potential) members, (2) LRECs and the government and (3) LRECs with other LRECs. The results of an online survey and qualitative interviews with selected cooperatives led to the identification of five key governance roles that these cooperatives take up in the facilitation of the energy transition: (1) mobilizing the public, (2) brokering between government and citizens, (3) providing context specific knowledge and expertise, (4) initiating accepted change and (5) proffering the integration of sustainability. The paper concludes by reflecting on the relevance of our findings in this Dutch case for the broader ‘just transition’ movement.

Households’ energy consumption has received a lot of attention in debates on urban sustainability and housing policy due to its possible consequences for climate change. In Europe, the residential sector accounts for roughly one third of the energy consumption and is responsible for 16% of total CO₂ emissions. Households have been progressively highlighted as the main actor that can play a substantial in the reduction of this energy use. Their behavior is a complex and hard to change process that combines numerous determinants. These determinants have already been extensively studied in the literature from a variety of thematic domains (psychology, sociology, economics, and engineering), however, each approach is limited by its own assumptions and often omit important energy behavioral components. Therefore, energy behavior studies require an integration of disciplines through interdisciplinary approaches. Based on that knowledge, this paper introduces a conceptual framework to capture and understand households’ energy consumption. The paper aims at connecting objective (physical and technical) with subjective (human) aspects related to energy use of households. This combination provide the answers to the ‘what’, the ‘how’ and most importantly the ‘why’ questions about people’s behavior regarding energy use. It allows clarifying the numerous internal and external factors that act as key determinants, as well as the need to take into account their interactions. By doing so, we conclude the paper by discussing the value of the conceptual framework along with valuable insights for researchers, practitioners and policymakers.

The paper presents the results of a survey analysis into the adoption and non-adoption of solar PV in Dutch households. It is based on a survey under 817 households undertaken in 2012. Households are aggregated into 4 groups based on whether the adoption is voluntary or involuntary (when people buy a house with solar panels) and whether or not the household can be considered a potential adopter or rejecter. For these four groups, we study and compare the characteristics of adopters and nonadopters of solar PV. Non-adopters are broken down in two groups: rejecters and potential adopters. The segmentation analysis gives more specific insight in the adoption of PV but can also be used to insight in the adoption of other technologies and/or in other countries.

Policy documents in Limburg stress the importance of participation and distribution of benefits in wind energy projects, but it is not clear which modes of participation and distribution of benefits are most just, both in terms of perceived justice, and in terms of justice principles. Research shows that considering justice in renewable energy transitions increases the level of acceptance. This study aims to provide insight in what modes of participation and distribution are perceived as most just and likely to create local acceptance of wind parks. The most preferred modes are being compared to the indicators of the energy justice framework in order if they meet the criteria for a fair procedure and distribution of outcomes. Based on semi-structured interviews the analysis of the data demonstrated that different modes of participation in different phases of the process are being preferred and that a balance between modes of distribution of benefits is preferred. The results indicate that the most preferred modes of participation cannot necessarily address all indicators of procedural justice and that depending on the mode of distribution of benefits and the balance between those modes indicators of distributive justice can be addressed.

The aim of this paper is to investigate households’ willingness to adopt technological and behavioral energy savings measures, in their dwellings and for daily mobility. Based on the evidence that occupants’ behavior has a major impact on energy uses at home and on the road, this paper aims at investigating which determinants influence household preferences for energy-saving measures, both technical as well as behavioral ones, as well as highlighting the key determinants for adopting energy-savings measures, at the household scale. This paper will attempt to shed more light on the factors that may bridge the intention–behavior gap. The analysis is based on an empirical survey carried out in the Netherlands. Main results show that (1) behavioral energy saving measures are more acceptable than technical ones; (2) the adoption of energy savings measures at home is more likely than on the road; (3) there is a relatively small market for technical energy measures, especially through the initial investment and the low return on investment; (4) environmental aspects seem to be more important for relatively expensive technical energy measures; (5) the reason for taking technological energy measures is rather to be found in differences among socio-demographic background than in environmental concerns; and (6) comfort at home and on the road is an important explanatory variable that many respondents used to justify not implementing energy savings measures and should be investigated in further research.