Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Urban areas account for over 70% of global energy consumption and are critical arenas for addressing climate change (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014). The transition towards sustainable urban energy systems involves profound changes in technologies, institutions, and user practices—a process conceptualized as socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2011; Köhler et al., 2019). Community energy cooperatives (CECs) have emerged as promising actors in this transition, enabling citizens to collectively own and manage renewable energy projects (Adil & Ko, 2016; Pati, 2017). Despite growing interest, the specific mechanisms through which CECs influence urban socio-technical transitions remain underexplored. This study addresses this gap by asking: How do community energy cooperatives facilitate socio-technical transitions in urban energy systems, and what factors enable or constrain their impact?</p><p>Drawing on the multi-level perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2011), we analyze CECs as niche innovations that interact with existing socio-technical regimes and landscape pressures. The MLP framework has been widely applied to understand sustainability transitions (Markard et al., 2016; Hermwille, 2016), but its application to urban contexts and community-based initiatives requires further elaboration (Rohracher & Späth, 2013). We combine a systematic literature review, quantitative analysis of 120 CECs across Europe, and qualitative case studies of four urban cooperatives. Our findings contribute to the literature on socio-technical transitions and provide policy-relevant insights for fostering community-led energy initiatives.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<p>Socio-technical transitions involve co-evolutionary changes in technology, policy, markets, culture, and user practices (Geels, 2011; Köhler et al., 2019). Urban energy systems are particularly complex due to dense infrastructure networks, diverse actors, and place-based politics (Rutherford & Coutard, 2014; Argyriou, 2018). The MLP distinguishes three analytical levels: landscape (macro-level trends like climate change), regime (dominant configurations of technology and institutions), and niches (protected spaces for radical innovation) (Geels, 2011). Niche innovations, such as CECs, can challenge and transform regimes if they gain momentum and align with landscape pressures (Breitschopf et al., 2023).</p><p>Community energy cooperatives are member-owned organizations that invest in renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, and local grid management (Adil & Ko, 2016; Pati, 2017). They are often framed as vehicles for energy democracy and justice (Sareen & Haarstad, 2018). Studies highlight their role in fostering social learning, trust, and collective action (Chilvers et al., 2018; Cuesta-Fernandez et al., 2020). However, CECs face barriers such as regulatory hurdles, limited access to finance, and incumbent resistance (Turnheim & Sovacool, 2020). Digitalization offers new opportunities for CECs through smart grids and peer-to-peer trading (Veskioja et al., 2022; Hansen et al., 2019). Yet, the interplay between digitalization and community dynamics is not well understood.</p><p>This review identifies three gaps: (1) limited empirical evidence on the socio-technical impacts of CECs in urban settings, (2) insufficient integration of justice dimensions, and (3) lack of comparative analysis across different urban contexts. Our study addresses these gaps by employing a mixed-methods design that captures both quantitative outcomes and qualitative processes.</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>We adopt a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. First, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify key variables and frameworks. Second, we compiled a dataset of 120 CECs operating in urban areas across 12 European countries, using data from cooperative associations, energy reports, and surveys. Variables include member size, installed capacity (MW), energy savings (MWh/year), renewable energy share (%), digitalization index (based on smart meter adoption and online platforms), and policy support (binary indicator for feed-in tariffs or subsidies). Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression were used to analyze the determinants of energy performance. Third, we selected four case studies (in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) for in-depth qualitative analysis, involving semi-structured interviews (n=32) with cooperative members, managers, and local policymakers, plus document analysis. Cases were chosen to represent variation in size, technology mix, and institutional context. Data analysis followed thematic coding guided by the MLP framework.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<h4>Descriptive statistics</h4><p>Table 1 presents summary statistics for the 120 CECs. The average cooperative has 450 members, 2.5 MW installed capacity, and achieves annual energy savings of 1,200 MWh. The renewable energy share averages 78%, and the digitalization index has a mean of 0.65 (scale 0-1). Policy support is present in 70% of cases.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Mean</th><th>Std. Dev.</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Members (count)</td><td>450</td><td>320</td><td>25</td><td>1,500</td></tr><tr><td>Installed capacity (MW)</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.1</td><td>8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Energy savings (MWh/yr)</td><td>1,200</td><td>850</td><td>50</td><td>4,000</td></tr><tr><td>Renewable energy share (%)</td><td>78</td><td>15</td><td>40</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Digitalization index (0-1)</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>Policy support (0/1)</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.46</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Descriptive statistics of 120 community energy cooperatives.</figcaption></figure><h4>Regression analysis</h4><p>Table 2 reports ordinary least squares regression results for energy savings (log-transformed). Model 1 includes basic predictors; Model 2 adds digitalization and policy interactions. Member size and installed capacity are positively associated with energy savings. Digitalization has a significant positive effect, and this effect is stronger in cooperatives with policy support (interaction term).</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Predictor</th><th>Model 1</th><th>Model 2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>4.12 (0.45)***</td><td>3.89 (0.50)***</td></tr><tr><td>Log(members)</td><td>0.28 (0.08)***</td><td>0.25 (0.08)***</td></tr><tr><td>Installed capacity (MW)</td><td>0.15 (0.04)***</td><td>0.13 (0.04)***</td></tr><tr><td>Digitalization index</td><td>0.45 (0.18)*</td><td>0.32 (0.19)</td></tr><tr><td>Policy support</td><td>0.20 (0.10)*</td><td>0.05 (0.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Digitalization × Policy</td><td></td><td>0.55 (0.22)*</td></tr><tr><td>R²</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>N</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Regression results for log energy savings. Standard errors in parentheses. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.</figcaption></figure><h4>Case study findings</h4><p>Qualitative analysis revealed three key mechanisms through which CECs facilitate transitions: (1) technological innovation through pilot projects (e.g., smart grid integration), (2) social learning and trust-building among members, and (3) institutional change by advocating for favorable policies. The German cooperative, for instance, successfully lobbied for a local feed-in tariff, while the Spanish cooperative faced regulatory barriers that limited its expansion.</p><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/socio-technical-transitions-in-urban-energy-systems-the-role-of-community-energy-cooperatives-n89x3/figure-1-1779806673662.octet-stream" alt="Bar chart comparing energy savings across four case study cooperatives, showing variation by digitalization level" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Bar chart comparing energy savings across four case study cooperatives, showing variation by digitalization level</figcaption></figure></p><p>Table 3 compares the four case studies across selected dimensions.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Case (Country)</th><th>Members</th><th>Installed Capacity (MW)</th><th>Energy Savings (MWh/yr)</th><th>Digitalization Index</th><th>Key Barrier</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Coop A (Germany)</td><td>800</td><td>4.0</td><td>2,500</td><td>0.85</td><td>Grid connection delays</td></tr><tr><td>Coop B (Spain)</td><td>200</td><td>1.0</td><td>500</td><td>0.40</td><td>Regulatory uncertainty</td></tr><tr><td>Coop C (Sweden)</td><td>600</td><td>3.0</td><td>1,800</td><td>0.75</td><td>High upfront costs</td></tr><tr><td>Coop D (UK)</td><td>400</td><td>2.0</td><td>1,000</td><td>0.60</td><td>Lack of policy support</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 3. Comparison of four case study cooperatives.</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>Our findings demonstrate that CECs act as important niche actors in urban energy transitions, aligning with the MLP framework (Geels, 2011). The quantitative results indicate that digitalization enhances cooperative performance, particularly when supported by favorable policies, echoing Veskioja et al. (2022). The case studies reveal that CECs can drive technological innovation and social learning, but their impact is contingent on institutional context (Rohracher & Späth, 2013; Argyriou, 2018). Barriers such as regulatory lock-in and financial constraints remain significant (Turnheim & Sovacool, 2020).</p><p>Our study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on the socio-technical impacts of CECs, integrating justice considerations (Sareen & Haarstad, 2018), and highlighting the role of digitalization. However, limitations include the European focus and cross-sectional data. Future research should explore longitudinal dynamics and non-European contexts. Policy implications include the need for supportive regulatory frameworks, financial incentives, and capacity-building programs to empower CECs.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Community energy cooperatives play a vital role in urban socio-technical transitions by fostering innovation, social learning, and institutional change. Digitalization and policy support are key enablers of their effectiveness. To harness their full potential, policymakers should reduce regulatory barriers and provide targeted support. This study advances understanding of how grassroots initiatives can contribute to sustainable urban energy futures, offering pathways for more inclusive and resilient energy systems.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Timma, L., Blumberga, A., Bazbauers, G., Blumberga, D. (2017). Novel tools to study socio-technical transitions in energy systems. <em>Energy Procedia</em>, <em>128</em>, 418-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.048</li>
<li>Rutherford, J., Coutard, O. (2014). Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes and Politics of Socio-technical Change. <em>Urban Studies</em>, <em>51</em>(7), 1353-1377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013500090</li>
<li>Argyriou, I. (2018). Urban energy transitions in ordinary cities: Philadelphia’s place-based policy innovations for socio-technical energy change in the commercial sector. <em>Urban Research & Practice</em>, <em>13</em>(3), 243-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1540654</li>
<li>Sareen, S., Haarstad, H. (2018). Bridging socio-technical and justice aspects of sustainable energy transitions. <em>Applied Energy</em>, <em>228</em>, 624-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.104</li>
<li>Gebreslassie, M. G., Cuvilas, C. (2023). The role of community energy systems to facilitate energy transitions in Ethiopia and Mozambique. <em>Energy Systems</em>. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-023-00640-w</li>
<li>Hermwille, L. (2016). The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. <em>Energy Research & Social Science</em>, <em>11</em>, 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.001</li>
<li>Rohracher, H., Späth, P. (2013). The Interplay of Urban Energy Policy and Socio-technical Transitions: The Eco-cities of Graz and Freiburg in Retrospect. <em>Urban Studies</em>, <em>51</em>(7), 1415-1431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013500360</li>
<li>Breitschopf, B., Grimm, A., Billerbeck, A., Wydra, S., Köhler, J. (2023). Towards understanding interactions between socio-technical systems in sustainability transitions. <em>Energy Research & Social Science</em>, <em>106</em>, 103323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103323</li>
<li>Turnheim, B., Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Exploring the role of failure in socio-technical transitions research. <em>Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions</em>, <em>37</em>, 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.09.005</li>
<li>Adil, A. M., Ko, Y. (2016). Socio-technical evolution of Decentralized Energy Systems: A critical review and implications for urban planning and policy. <em>Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews</em>, <em>57</em>, 1025-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.079</li>
<li>Chang, R., Lu, Y. (2017). Facilitating Systemic Changes Towards Green Buildings: Developing Conceptual Frameworks of Socio-Technical Transitions. <em>Energy Procedia</em>, <em>143</em>, 301-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.688</li>
<li>Zischg, J., Rogers, B., Gunn, A., Rauch, W., Sitzenfrei, R. (2019). Future trajectories of urban drainage systems: A simple exploratory modeling approach for assessing socio-technical transitions. <em>Science of The Total Environment</em>, <em>651</em>, 1709-1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.061</li>
<li>Cuesta-Fernandez, I., Belda-Miquel, S., Calabuig Tormo, C. (2020). Challengers in energy transitions beyond renewable energy cooperatives: community-owned electricity distribution cooperatives in Spain. <em>Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research</em>, <em>33</em>(2), 140-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1732197</li>
<li>Miller, W. (2019). Food, water, energy, waste: an examination of socio-technical issues for urban prosumers – Part 1 (Context). <em>Energy Procedia</em>, <em>161</em>, 360-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.104</li>
<li>Pati, S. (2017). Socio-Technical Drivers for Community Renewable Energy Systems – Analysis of Case Studies from India. <em>Journal of Sustainable Development</em>, <em>10</em>(3), 143. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v10n3p143</li>
<li>Hansen, P., Liu, X., Morrison, G. M. (2019). Agent-based modelling and socio-technical energy transitions: A systematic literature review. <em>Energy Research & Social Science</em>, <em>49</em>, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.021</li>
<li>Markard, J., Suter, M., Ingold, K. (2016). Socio-technical transitions and policy change – Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy. <em>Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions</em>, <em>18</em>, 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.003</li>
<li>Chilvers, J., Pallett, H., Hargreaves, T. (2018). Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions. <em>Energy Research & Social Science</em>, <em>42</em>, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.020</li>
<li>Miller, W. (2019). Food, water, energy, waste: an examination of socio-technical issues for urban prosumers: Part 2 (Results and Discussion). <em>Energy Procedia</em>, <em>161</em>, 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.103</li>
<li>Veskioja, K., Soe, R., Kisel, E. (2022). Implications of digitalization in facilitating socio-technical energy transitions in Europe. <em>Energy Research & Social Science</em>, <em>91</em>, 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102720</li>
<li>Cooper, A. C. (2017). Building a socio-technical energy research community: Theory, practice and impact. <em>Energy Research & Social Science</em>, <em>26</em>, 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.001</li>
<li>Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. <em>Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions</em>, <em>31</em>, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004</li>
<li>O’Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., Vuuren, D. P. v., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G. C. (2016). The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. <em>Geoscientific model development</em>, <em>9</em>(9), 3461-3482. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016</li>
<li>Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. <em>Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002</li>
<li>Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. <em>Ecological Economics</em>, <em>65</em>(4), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011</li>
<li>Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J., Levy, R. B., Louzada, M. L. d. C., Jaime, P. C. (2017). The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. <em>Public Health Nutrition</em>, <em>21</em>(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980017000234</li>
<li>Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic Analysis of Social Interactions. <em>The Journal of Economic Perspectives</em>, <em>14</em>(3), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.115</li>
<li>Acemoğlu, D., Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor. <em>The Journal of Economic Perspectives</em>, <em>33</em>(2), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3</li>
<li>Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M. (2015). Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-actor Perspective. <em>Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning</em>, <em>18</em>(5), 628-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2015.1112259</li>
<li>Porta, R. L., Shleifer, A. (2014). Informality and Development. <em>The Journal of Economic Perspectives</em>, <em>28</em>(3), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.109</li>
</ol>
</article>