There is an urgent need for transitions towards green energy that requires shifts in collective behaviours and energy systems. It is crucial to design for socially inclusive transition possibilities that support the agency and resilience of residents who are ignored, not supported, or priced out by neoclassical market-based strategies. Here, we report from our design anthropological research in Amsterdam Zuidoost, where we investigated the concept of ‘energy exchanges’ between local households, communities, and large energy asset owners, such as the Johan Cruijff Arena. The diverse and dynamic social, cultural, and economic composition of Zuidoost presents multiple challenges for the active inclusion of local residents in energy systems. We explored possibilities for socioeconomically inclusive forms of energy exchanges that go beyond the dominant neoclassical understanding of energy exchange as ‘trading’ of energy. We draw on anthropological literature around ‘gifting’ and ‘giving’, and local currencies that enable us to reframe the concept of energy exchange. Through co-design practices with residents and infrastructure owners, we explore relational approaches to energy exchange in support of inclusive, sustainable futures. These included reflective workshops, generative interviews, and experiments on the street. We looked at the roles that different stakeholders can play in local energy exchange and alternative configurations for carrying out the exchanges. Based on this work, we present two ideas: firstly, we propose ‘energy actions’, concrete activities that connect energy exchanges to socially and environmentally beneficial activities. These grew out of the design work as a way to capture and design relational exchanges around sustainability transitions. Secondly, we outline the concept of ‘relational giving’, which is a conceptual approach to looking at exchanges with infrastructure in a manner that augments commodity exchange by building social relationships and value networks. Aiming to introduce tangibility to the transition, this project offers starting points for designing sustainable, affordable and reliable energy futures in Amsterdam Zuidoost.

The Clean Energy for all Europeans package (2019) and the Renewable Energy Directive (2018) paved the way for Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) to become part of the energy landscape of the EU (Hearn & Castaño-Rosa, 2021). Although progress is heterogenous across different member states, increasing citizen engagement in such projects is a shared concern throughout the EU. RECs greatly increase the complexity of energy markets, whilst simultaneously providing greater energy security and aiding in decarbonization efforts, hence attracting and retaining citizen engagement is vital if they are to become prevalent. Research has shown that REC members engage in REC communities for various reasons, perceiving different kinds of benefits (Shortall et al., 2022). Although financial benefits are often considered to be an incentive for REC membership, variations in national energy landscapes mean that this is not always the case and that engagement is dependent on both financial and non-financial factors. Furthermore, cultural differences may influence the success rate of commonly applied engagement strategies (de Witte et al., 2021), such as tailored information and communication campaigns as well as different workshop formats. In this research, we investigate different engagement strategies applied by seven different REC creators, with varying underlying business models and from six different European Countries. To this end, we conducted a series of in-depth interviews with major stakeholders involved in the creation of RECs in Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Greece and Spain. Our talk will draw conclusions regarding promising methods to increase engagement in RECs, perceived barriers and success factors. We additionally aim to provide country specific recommendations regarding engagement, based on our case studies. References De Witte, N. A., Adriaensen, I., Broeckx, L., Van Der Auwera, V., & Van Daele, T. (2021). Cross-cultural differences in user-centred research: an international living lab survey. Health Informatics Journal, 27(3), 14604582211038268. Hearn, A. X., & Castaño-Rosa, R. (2021). Towards a just energy transition, barriers and opportunities for positive energy district creation in Spain. Sustainability, 13(16), 8698. Shortall, R., Mengolini, A., & Gangale, F. (2022). Citizen Engagement in EU Collective Action Energy Projects. Sustainability, 14(10), 5949.

There is now a clear urgency to achieving the energy transition (IEA, 2022). In Europe, for example, the energy production and use sector account for over 75% of GHG emissions. The European commission set targets to accelerate the development of clean energy and to reach 42.5 % renewable energy by 2030 in the Renewable Energy Directive (European Commission, 2018). Within this they establish and include new provisions for Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), many of which are being developed in rural areas. Increasing citizen engagement in RECs is thus paramount if EU targets are to be met. There are many possible constellations of RECs and understanding preferences, expressed by different societal and cultural groups can support REC development and increase engagement. Cultural and individual differences add to the complexities surrounding engagement (de Witte et al., 2021). Thus, this research focusses on understanding preferences for engagement strategies and levels, focusing on 1. frequency of engagement (e.g. yearly, monthly, weekly etc.), 2. financial and non-financial intervention strategies (e.g., gamification, investment, information); and 3. varying levels of automated energy use (e.g. automation with no opt out to occasional monitoring) for members and potential members of RECs. This will be achieved through the application of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) included within a multinational study across various European countries (e.g. Spain, Greece, Austria, Ireland). Participants make 6 choices, choosing between 3 alternatives and 1 status quo option, displaying different engagement constellations of RECs displayed through the attributes 1-3 (see above). In the talk, we present key overall findings and specific results for select European countries. References De Witte, N. A., Adriaensen, I., Broeckx, L., Van Der Auwera, V., & Van Daele, T. (2021). Cross-cultural differences in user-centred research: an international living lab survey. Health Informatics Journal, 27(3), 14604582211038268. European Commission, (2018). Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC), retrieved 15.11.23 from https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en#directive-20182001eu IEA (2022), World Energy Outlook 2022, IEA, Paris htps://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022, License: CC BY 4.0 (report); CC BY NC SA 4.0 (Annex A). Shortall, R., Mengolini, A., & Gangale, F. (2022). Citizen Engagement in EU Collective Action Energy Projects. Sustainability, 14(10), 5949.

Mayors and City leaders are very interested on innovative actions, practices, and ways to capture SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) alignment within their local strategies and to foster equity and sustainability for their communities. Positive Energy Neighbourhoods and Positive Energy Districts can act as lighthouses within a city transformation: They are concepts to showcase best practice in energy transition measures. However, research shows that it is notoriously difficult to define the character of so called “PEDs” exactly. Simply Positive – an international research project in the field of positive energy districts – tries to tackle this issue with a clear definition for existing neighbourhoods and districts in different countries and climates, which can be adjusted based on their special local context. Amsterdam is one of four so called “focus districts”, showcasing the application of positive energy balance assessments based on available data. The system boundaries of this assessment are approached from spatial, temporal, and functional perspectives: 1. Spatial means an actual physical boundary of included energy services and supplies. 2. Temporal system boundaries can be interpreted as the balancing period and are typically set to one operational year. 3. Functional system boundaries are used to identify specific energy functions, uses, or demands to be included or excluded according to function, rather than spatial proximity. They can be roughly categorized into three groups: (1) involving operational energy and user electricity, (2) addressing mobility aspects, and (3) accounting for embodied energy and emissions. Within simply positive project, Amsterdam was defined as focus district over its full size and took the following two major city goals as targets: (1) to obtain 550 MW on roofs till 2030; and (2) all buildings natural gas free till 2040. Amsterdam focuses thereby on urban PV maximization, where a very realistic PV and PV-T potential for the whole city is established. Within the presentation we will show the identified available data and the context for Amsterdam’s PED energy balance assessment, and how this might differ to the other focus districts of the project, being based in Italy, Romania, and Austria. Only with a clearly formulated and operational theoretical framework of effort-sharing is it possible to interlink and motivate on an international level the pursuit of highly innovative and ambitious project solutions and their replication.