1. Introduction
Energy is one of the major sources of carbon emissions, contributing 20.7 GtCO2e to global net anthropogenic emissions in 2021 [1]. As global concerns about climate change grow, so does the movement toward renewable energy as a primary energy source, to mitigate climate change [2]. The current global economy is driven by fossil fuels [3], and energy is the fundamental block that simulates modern societies [4]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the performance of such a system at multiple levels to ensure its reliability, efficiency, and accessibility [4]. However, there is no universally agreed-upon method or set of metrics for measuring or estimating the impact of plans to address uncertainties accompanied by a variable supply of renewables, energy sprawl, which could affect other built environment and ecological services, and the system reliability and accessibility [5].
Land is a competitive source [6]. With the growing demand for renewables, and an estimated population of 10 billion by 2050 [7], the built environment and energy sprawl will increase to meet the demands of the growing population [8]. The relationship between energy and land has become necessary, especially when developing long-term plans [9]. To avoid negative environmental, ecological, economic, and social impacts, decision-makers may need to understand the trade-offs of their policies before proceeding with the transition [10]. A complete energy transition from finite fossil fuel resources to renewable and low-carbon resources is an essential breakthrough in combating the effects of GHG emissions on climate change. This transition should also consider various aspects that affect sustainability and emission reduction targets, such as energy efficiency generation, demand reduction, environmental impact, and socioeconomic factors [11].
As countries strive to meet their climate goals, understanding the metrics that drive effective planning and decision-making becomes paramount. Despite the extensive body of literature studying the impact of renewable energy transition and energy resilience, most studies focus on one area such as evaluating energy equity [12], resilience [13], or social, economic, and environmental sustainability [14]. A limited number of studies have focused on reviewing the impact of a complete transition plan that replaced fossil fuels with hybrid systems. The principal goal of this article is to move beyond theories toward the practical application of planning for a complete energy transition. It does this by developing a conceptual framework that allows the performance of the main elements that deliver reliable, efficient, and accessible renewable energy sources to be evaluated. The conceptual framework relies on (i) developing a conceptual framework that can assist energy planners, spatial planners, communities, policymakers, and stakeholders in planning and decision-making, (ii) conducting a comprehensive review of the metrics used to evaluate the plans, projects, and scenarios of energy transition used in the literature, and (ii) evaluating and selecting metrics based on the overall objectives of the framework that can measure the impact of energy transition for communities.
2. Background
Traditionally, communities relied mostly on large-scale power plants powered by fossil fuels, gas, and nuclear energy at a central location and transmitting electricity over long distances to end users [15]. These systems are dominant in most counties [15], where energy planning favors centralized systems because of their cost effectiveness and ability to satisfy energy demand [16]. However, centralized energy systems are explicitly dependent on finite, nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels and gas, which are major contributors to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, coal mining and the drilling of oil and gas, which are essential in operating these systems, cause land degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss [17]. Clean renewable energy communities (CREC) are a bottom-up transition approach that relies on citizen engagement to create a niche that can influence transition in the energy system [18]. However, these communities face barriers in implementing their initiatives. In this section, CREC are defined in the context of this study, and it is explained how metrics can guide communities planning to transition to clean renewable energy.
2.1. Clean Renewable Energy Community Transition Dynamics
There are multiple definitions of energy communities. These definitions arise from the definitions of communities. According to the sociological definition of community by Fulcher and Scott [19], communities can be defined based on their living situation, as residential or nonresidential communities; based on shared activity, which is not limited to work or sports, and covers other areas of life; based on a shared collective action towards a common interest; or based on sharing a common identity. Communities can also be defined based on a place or geographical area that binds a group of people [20]. Accordingly, the definition of energy communities can be summarized as communities that have a social relation and are involved in decision-making for the common local benefit of a specific geographical area [21].
The European Union has given communities legal identification and defined two types of communities, renewable energy communities (RECs) and citizen energy communities (CECs). An REC can be defined as a legal entity controlled by members located in proximity to a renewable energy project and receiving environmental and social benefits from the projects, while a CEC is a legal entity directly engaged in all aspects of generation, supply, consumption, storage, and charging of Electric Vehicles [22]. Another common definition of an REC by Walker and Devine-Write [23] is a group of people who collectively own, operate, and benefit directly from a renewable energy project, or a group of people who collectively own, operate, and benefit from renewable energy systems, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass systems. Walker and Devine-Write also argued that the broad meaning of an REC allows the innovation and testing of different social, technological, and economic models.
In the context of this study, CREC refer to communities residing in a common geographical area that are engaged in the production, consumption, distribution, and local policy advocacy of clean renewable energy. These communities place their residents at the center of the energy transition, creating local economic and social benefits and environmental preservation across the area [24]. Globally, many community transition initiatives have been implemented, using several energy production and storage technologies, and sharing approaches partially or fully covering the energy demand. The grassroots initiative used different socioeconomic models to develop, manage, and operate community energy projects. Communities utilized different business strategies, cooperative participation models, and public–private participation to facilitate community energy transition [25]. Their primary goals are to address climate change, decarbonize the energy system, and achieve net zero GHG emissions by implementing long-term strategies to create cleaner and more sustainable solutions [26]. However, this transition involves multilayered challenges and requires innovative energy planning approaches that mix different energy resources, land use reforms, development of energy policies aligned with decarbonization, and environmental preservation [27].
2.2. Role of Dimensions, Indicators, and Metrics in Energy Transition
Energy transition is a multi-dimensional issue, and effective planning to shift completely from fossil fuel centralized systems to decentralized clean renewable energy systems can face multiple challenges [27]. To overcome these challenges, Iddrisu and Bhattacharyya [28] proposed a five-dimensional model to assess sustainable energy, comprising environmental, social, technical, economic, and institutional dimensions. To capture tangible results, indicators are used to provide a measurement or value that benchmarks progress toward transition goals [29]. Since energy transition is a complex development issue, there is no single indicator that can capture the components of each dimension [28]. In this case, metrics provide an efficient method to evaluate plans and provide essential information to evaluate trade-offs and ensure alignment with the overall goals [5].
Energy resilience (ER) has gained traction during the last two decades [30]. Multiple definitions of ER have expanded over the last 20 years [31]. Panteli [32] defined ER based on the ability to meet energy demand during natural and manmade disasters, adapt, recover, and prepare for energy disturbances while focusing on system reliability, security, and stability in terms of the ability to supply energy during contingencies and remain stable [33]. The changing nature of energy from fossil fuel centralized to decentralized systems of clean renewable sources gives CREC a pivotal role in the global energy landscape [34]. However, the risks associated with using variable energy sources that have uncertainties require resilience planning to prevent energy shortages [35], along with other disruptions that face power systems [36]. To provide resilience, metrics should be incorporated into community transition plans to ensure system reliability [32]. Thus, a clear definition of metrics and evaluation methods for resilient systems is crucial at the planning stage [37].
The research on sustainable energy transition is a growing field covering multiple theories and methodologies from different dimensions [38]. On the other hand, sustainability in energy transition requires understanding the trade-off and potential losses of the different renewable energy technologies and resources needed. These considerations are crucial in shaping the direction and success of energy transition efforts. Addressing these considerations requires an overview over multiple dimensions and establishing a balance between the variables encompassing each dimension [39]. The complexity of sustainability transition requires unpacking the dimensions into variables that allow these questions to be answered in a nuanced manner. It is also important to know when and how to answer them [40]. Thus, the identification of metrics that reflect the impact of different plans and provide a way to understand the trade-off of different scenarios over time before developing decisions and implementing actions is crucial [41].
Examining energy transition has developed from being fundamentally studied as a techno-economic transition to now being examined in both space and time [42]. This broader analysis allows for the determination of how land can be used based on the capacity and potential of energy generation [43]. Understanding the spatiality of energy transition can help address the sustainability dimensions of energy transition as well, and overcome the challenges associated with energy sprawl and land use choice [42]. Additionally, the relation between economic, human, social, natural, and physical capitals is a key factor that influences the development of community renewable energy projects and provides insights into how land use choices affect local development and rural areas [44]. Selecting metrics that assess land use can provide insight into the interaction between land development choices and their impact on the economic, social, technical, environmental, and institutional dimensions. Table 1 summarizes the adopted terminologies dimension, indicators and metrics related to energy transition.
3. Methodology
This study is based on a literature review of the work of renewable energy transition and sustainable and resilient energy scholars, and methods and metrics that quantify the impact of energy transition plans on the goals of shifting towards decentralized renewable clean energy systems. The literature review supports the development of a conceptual framework that can guide research, stakeholders, communities, and decision-makers in transition plan development. The research is then extended to integrate the main concepts of the framework with indicators and metrics that guide decision-makers to assess the performance of transition plans to manage energy sprawl and synthesize the complex and interconnected challenges facing the shift from fossil-based energy systems.
3.1. Literature Review
A combination of a standard literature review methodology and a focused review on wide-ranging disciplines was used to compile articles from different scholars, including articles on urban planning, energy policy and planning, resilience studies, and sustainability sciences. The literature review focused on studies that quantitatively assess the transition to renewable energy systems across different scales, communities, regions, and countries. The aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of the different methodologies, metrics, and indicators used that guide the research in measuring decision-making and the progress of the transition to renewable energy, and its impact on different aspects, sectors, and dimensions.
A thematic review was conducted to cover the five dimensions of sustainability (social, technical, environmental, economic, and political and institutional) and the different metrics and indicators used to assess the transition to clean renewable sources. The review process included several steps. First, it identified the metrics and indicators used to evaluate the transition to renewable energy plans, processes, and approaches. Second, it examined how these metrics vary across the different dimensions of sustainability. Finally, it assessed the strengths and limitations of these metrics in terms of measuring system efficiency, reliability, and accessibility. This information was then used to support the analysis of the metrics that guided the objective of the framework developed in this study.
Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus are widely utilized in thematic studies, each offering advantages and limitations. WoS is considered a selective tool that enables the identification of high-quality, peer-reviewed journal articles. In contrast, GS has a broader range of coverage that allows a broader range of citations to be captured and gray literature to be retrieved, which is often not indexed in traditional databases [45]. Scopus is a less selective database than WoS and offers a more balanced approach with broader journal coverage, making it useful for thematic studies across different disciplines [46]. However, both WoS and Scopus have been criticized for their biases in many research fields, including the arts, humanities, and social sciences, as well as in non-Western and non-English research. Additionally, the automated data retrieval process can result in incomplete data, which can affect the reliability of the study [47]. To ensure the coverage of a wide range of literature, the research used the Web of Science database and Google Scholar search engine, compensating for the limited access to Scopus and emphasizing the necessity of including varied data sources to enrich the study.
The search was conducted to obtain studies that measure and analyze the transition to renewable energy from different aspects. This approach, supported by Zotero, a reference management tool, resulted in the identification of 5122 unique studies, and ensured that each study was reviewed only once. The search was filtered to include only studies published between 2005 and 2023 as the mid-2000s witnessed the global recognition, technological innovation, and commercialization of cleantech [48], and 2005 is considered a significant year for energy policies in the USA [49]. Sustainability is a very broad theme that includes multiple sub-themes and is used in different disciplines [50]. Therefore, the search was narrowed by using specific keywords related to the energy transition. These included ‘renewable energy transition metrics’, ‘renewable energy transition dimensions’, ‘renewable energy transition indicators’, ‘renewable energy transition planning’, ‘renewable energy transition analyses’, and ‘renewable energy transition assessment’, which resulted in 1155 papers. The search was then targeted towards metrics that measure one or more of the five sustainability dimensions, which led to the final selection of 267 articles.
The review of these articles adopts a narrative approach to synthesize the literature on the transition to renewable energy and the metrics used to assess energy transition via a multidisciplinary approach. The initial assessment of the identified papers was based on the title and the abstract. Papers that met specific inclusion criteria were then selected for a comprehensive review. The inclusion criteria included (1) the paper using a qualitative or quantitative metric; (2) the paper proposing an assessment method for transition to renewable energy; (3) the paper evaluating one or more dimensions of sustainability; (4) the paper evaluating the impact of energy across one or more of the selected disciplines; (5) the paper being a case study, scenario model, or literature review; (6) the paper being written in English. Papers that did not meet these criteria were excluded from the comprehensive review. The search examined articles that studied the transition from the perspective of specific disciplines such as urban planning, resilience planning, development studies, environmental sciences, and conservation. This review supported the development of the conceptual framework that can guide the decision-making pathway.
3.2. Conceptual Framework
Planning for community energy transition is more than just economic feasibility analysis, renewable resource selection, and infrastructure development. It requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses energy sustainability, land development, and system resiliency. This integration requires changes in policies, regulations, and land use on multiple scales to support decentralized systems. The proposed framework for community energy transition integrates the principles of sustainable land use (SLU), sustainable energy planning (SEP), and resilient energy planning (REP). This study provides a comprehensive approach to studying the impact of sustainable land use on the transition to a reliable, efficient, and accessible energy system.
Mapping place-based potential for clean renewable energy on various scales (community, town, or area) is crucial. This framework includes a land-based planning strategy to ensure growth and improve energy efficiency at the building and area levels while committing to environmental and biodiversity protection and societal well-being. It also highlights the importance of resilience in energy planning to ensure a reliable energy supply that is not disrupted by variable energy output. To integrate sustainability, resilience, and sustainable land use principles, we designed this conceptual framework (Figure 1) and were inspired by the triple bottom line principle to integrate the interdisciplinary energy planning, policy changes, and land use strategies needed for community energy transition. This also assists in addressing the challenges associated with energy source selection, built environment efficiency, and the energy trade.
The framework also serves as a simplified practical tool for identifying indicators and metrics that crosscut between the three elements of SLU, REP, and SEP and use the five-dimensional (Table 2) approach of sustainability adopted from Kabeyi and Olanrewaju [51] to analyze energy sustainability.
3.2.1. Efficient Built Environment
The core principles of sustainable land development can offer communities greater opportunities to decentralize their energy system through using clean renewable energy resources because energy is central to economic growth, compact urban form, efficient land use, and infrastructure. Mixed-use principles and recognition of community participation create opportunities for communities to plan for transition [52]. However, this is not independent of the need for complementary policies that create financial and regulatory incentives to support the transition [8].
Sustainable land use planning allows planners to guide energy plans for wise placement of larger-scale renewable energy projects while managing energy sprawl and mitigating environmental impacts to ensure sustainability of energy transition [53]. This can be combined with energy generated within mixed-use development through rooftop PV [54] and dual land use with farmlands, commercial buildings, and parking lots [55]. Allowing for decentralized energy systems through local generation and distribution, where most of the energy is generated and used locally through microgrids, additionally reduces energy loss through long transmission lines [56]. This also contributes to economic vitality, social equity, environmental quality, energy accessibility, and energy efficiency [57]. Several studies have assessed the impact of sustainable land use planning, such as smart growth, on energy efficiency. For example, a study in Porto, Portugal, by Silva et al. [58] concluded that smart growth plans are also linked to reduced energy consumption for heating and combating the symptoms of urban sprawl. Additionally, transit-oriented development through increased compactness and densification scenarios was studied in Dallas, TX, to understand the impact on energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings. It was concluded that this form of sustainable land planning decreased the energy demand in both residential and commercial areas [59]. Another study, in Toronto, by O’Brien and Kennedy [60] found that mixed-energy land use combined with energy efficiency building measures in high-density areas with low-rise, large-area storage buildings and markets can generate renewable energy that exceeds local demand.
3.2.2. Reliable Energy System
Resilient energy planning aims to create a robust energy system that withstands shock events, such as climate events and variable energy supply [61]. The reliable objective of the proposed framework is rooted in several aspects. It aims to ensure reliable access to communities through diversifying energy supply through hybrid energy systems that combine renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydro and clean low-carbon sources as secondary sources, such as bioenergy from agricultural waste, incinerators, or peer-to-peer energy trading [31]. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha [62] suggested that adopting mixed energy sources, including renewables, can ensure long-term energy security and can be more sustainable, unlike the short-term security provided by fossil fuels.
Achieving reliable energy systems aligns with sustainability dimensions in several ways. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through the adoption of renewables, and hence reducing the environmental impact, is one aspect. The stabilizing of energy prices through reducing the reliance on fossil fuels that are affected by price fluctuation is another aspect. Furthermore, it creates social resilience through enhancing energy security and provides an efficient renewable energy system.
3.2.3. Accessible Energy System
The accessibility of the energy systems ensures that the energy system is not only available but also reachable and useable by all members of the community [63]. Access to renewable energy also requires proximity between where energy is generated and where it is used to reduce the reliance on long transmission lines, which are vulnerable to disruptions such as heat waves, and reduce energy loss through transmission lines [64]. This requires planning not only for technology selections but also for how these technologies are to be integrated into communities and landscapes [65].
The accessibility of the energy system is also related to its affordability, which is also factored into resilience energy planning [66]. However, this requires policies that incentivize renewable energy use and provide subsidies for the renewable energy infrastructure that enables the accessibility objective [67] and renewable energy siting [52]. Thus, considering renewable energy transition as a key component of land use planning and community development is essential for a successful energy transition.
4. Review of Renewable Energy Transition Metrics
The literature review focused on five main aspects of measuring energy transition: decision-making, planning, modeling, deployment, and scenario analysis for fossil fuel energy source replacement. This review provides an overview of the most used metrics in studies that included analysis or assessment of transition to renewable energy scenarios. The metrics are categorized into five main dimensions, environmental, technical, social, economic, and political and institutional, which are associated with the sustainability element of the conceptual framework. The indicators reflect how to measure performance against resilient and smart growth planning. The environmental dimension is represented by carbon emissions, the technical dimension through system performance, and the economic impact through return on investment. These metrics are the most used in the studies that assess energy transition projects, covered in the review. The studies reviewed are summarized in tables based on the five dimensions covered.
4.1. Environmental Dimension Metrics
The environmental metrics in the context of renewable energy transition focus on ecological health, biodiversity, and climate concerns. The level of emissions such as SO2, NOx, and CO2 emissions, land use, and resource requirements are commonly used to evaluate energy systems [68]. Turney and Fthenakis [69] examined the overall emissions to analyze the effects of establishing and operating solar power plants, looking at factors like land utilization intensity, resources, and contributions to climate change. Chen [70] compared the energy transitions of Germany and China by focusing on carbon intensity. Mehedi et al. [71] and Kapila et al. [72] evaluated the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions and the energy footprints of solar energy systems and storage systems, respectively. Cagle and Shepherd [43] explored metrics used for solar energy–land relationships. Tran and Egermann [73] explored the land use implications of energy transition pathways for decarbonization. Rej and Nag [74] estimated the future land requirements India will need to meet its goals, highlighting the balance between land usage and clean energy production. Hammond et al. [75] emphasized the limited significance of water use and waste generated as metrics to measure the impact of renewable energy in the United Kingdom. Davidsson et al. [76] highlighted the need to explore the natural resources used by wind energy to measure the impact on natural resource depletion. The common metrics that assist in measuring the environmental dimension are presented in the Table 3.
4.2. Technical Dimension Metrics
The technical dimension metrics in the context of renewable energy transition focus on multiple aspects, including infrastructure, technology, system efficiency, production, performance, and resource efficiency. Gul et al. [78] introduced a model to generate electricity and heat from wind and solar power and used the renewable energy fraction to measure how much energy the system could produce for communities. Saarinen and Tokimatsi [79] used residual load range metrics to compare the balancing needs of Japan and Sweden and applied flexibility metrics for the analysis of power system transition. Olowosejeje [80] proposed a practical approach for increased electrification, lower emissions, and lower energy costs in Africa and used the surplus energy metric to measure systems production, which was also used to assist in selecting systems that generate energy matching the demand for efficiency. Guo [81] presented a quantitative evaluation of power system flexibility based on an improved universal generating function method with a case study of Zhangjiakou. Lannoye, Flynn, and O’Malley [82] evaluated the flexibility of power systems, highlighting the need for power systems to manage periods of high variability as the penetration of variable renewable generation increases. Kraan [83] discussed the influence of the energy transition on the significance of key energy metrics, Total Primary Energy (TPE) and its related indicators, energy efficiency (EE), Energy Intensity (EI), and the key metric, Electricity Generation Capacity (EGC), and recommended shifting to total final consumption to better track the development of energy transition, emphasizing its relevance over traditional metrics. Elkadeem et al. [84] presented a sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid renewable energy and used the loss of power supply probability (LPSP) as a key metric to assess the reliability of hybrid renewable energy systems for risk assessment. Heylen, Deconinck, and Hertem [85] reviewed and classified reliability indicators for power systems with a high share of renewable energy sources. The common metrics that assist in measuring the technical dimension are presented in Table 4.
4.3. Social Dimension Metrics
The social dimension metrics in the context of renewable energy transition address the community’s well-being, equity, and quality of life. Kime [12] developed a framework for evaluating equity and justice in low-carbon energy transitions. Kontokosta et al. [86] presented a new method for small-area estimates of household energy cost burdens that leverages actual building energy use data and compares low-income households’ and higher-income households’ energy burden. Lennon et al. [87] measured community acceptance to renewable energy in six European communities through understanding their perception and their envisioned role in the transition. González et al. [88] developed a conceptual model based on the principles of sustainability and systems thinking that supports understanding of the factors influencing acceptance and sustainability of renewable energy projects. The common metrics that assist in measuring the social dimension are presented in Table 5.
4.4. Economic Dimension Metrics
The economic dimension metric in the context of renewable energy transition focuses on assessing economic viability, job creation, and affordability by looking at energy production, expenses, consumption, distribution, and transition. Gulagi et al. [89] and Abdin and Mérida [90] used the levelized cost of energy to compare the cost of producing electricity from different sources including renewables as a metric to measure affordability, while Simpson et al. [91] used the cost of valued energy (COVE) as a new metric to value energy based on the time of generation and grid demand, aiming to improve upon the traditional levelized cost of energy. Somoye et al. [92] modeled the determinants of renewable energy consumption in Nigeria and used the real gross domestic product (RGDP) as a metric to show that, as a country’s economy grows, it can then increase its spending on clean energy, making it a metric to measure renewable energy transition. Lui [93] examined and prioritized the effect of sustainable energy on the job market to advance China’s green workforce. Mehdi et al. [71] used the energy payback time (EPBT) as a metric to measure the speed of energy production, while Capellan-Perez et al. [94] used the energy return on energy investment (EROI) as a metric to evaluate how the shift to renewable energy affects the amount of energy returned to consumers in comparison to the amount of energy invested in generating electricity, and Tsai et al. [95] analyzed a small hybrid grid system for islands, and calculated the total net present cost to compare the cost effectiveness of different renewable energy scenarios based on particular locations. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) [96] used the Cost per Unit of Energy Saved as a metric to measure the economic benefits of renewable energy, and to evaluate the cost effectiveness of renewable energy projects. The common metrics that assist in measuring the economic dimension are presented in Table 6.
4.5. Political and Institutional Dimension Metrics
The political and institutional dimension metric in the context of renewable energy transition involves governance, policies, and participation. Zhang et al. [41] examined policy instruments, the effectiveness of renewable energy policies, and the impact of these policies on renewable energy investments to meet transition goals. Breetz et al. [97] explored the political logic of clean energy transitions. They argued that politics and institutional capacities are the hidden dimensions of technology experience curves as they affect both costs and deployment. Laurentis and Pearson [98] examined regional policy-making, governance, and infrastructure supporting renewable energy deployment, focusing on how these factors affect the spatial deployment of RE technologies. Bauwens [99] examined the motivations that affect community participation and institutional engagement, suggesting that policymakers should consider creating diverse policies that balance between market and community interactions to enhance renewable energy investments. The common metrics that assist in measuring the political and institutional dimension are presented in Table 7.
5. Discussion
In this section, we discuss the gaps and challenges associated with the metrics used in the literature to evaluate the transition to renewable energy and will then identify how to select metrics and indicators that align with the proposed conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 in Section 3.
5.1. Challenges Associated with Metrics Identification
The review highlights many issues in identifying metrics that can be used to study the impact of renewable energy transition. One common issue is the standardization of metrics, as highlighted by Ahi [100]. The study identified metrics relevant to the supply chain in energy-related projects. However, they identified more than 100 metrics, and only three metrics were common. Another issue is the subjectivity of selecting metrics. Kime et al. [12], in their study aiming to review metrics addressing equity in energy transition, highlighted that this may cause important metrics to be ignored while studying one of the dimensions. Whether it was unintentional or not, this may affect decision-making and reduce transparency. A third issue is the inconsistency of using these metrics and the units that misguide the result analysis. Cagle and Shepherd [43] highlighted this issue and the need for dissemination of findings across different disciplines contributing to this field. They also suggested the need to classify these metrics for easy use and selection. A fourth issue is the data sources and assumptions that also affect the selection of some metrics [69]. A fifth issue is the methodology used to calculate the emission [71]. A sixth issue is a contextual reference that may vary among regions and societies, where there is a need for metrics that measure the range of access and quality [101].
Additionally, the choice of metrics is often associated with the assessment method, which is highly related to the tools used and their resulting data [102]. For example, the techno-economic modeling tools usually provide an overview of the system efficiency either by providing the unmet hours or the energy supply [103]. That also includes economic output, such as net present value or return on investment. This is also another reason why these metrics are more common than other metrics. Also, with the increase in interest in justice, and equitable issues as well [104], more metrics have been used in studies to assess the social impact. Some of these metrics require qualitative tools to be measured, and this has increased the share of social metrics used [12].
5.2. Evaluating Metrics for Clean Renewable Energy Communities Transition
To evaluate the energy transition plan, metrics can be used to provide data information on specific indicators to make the assessment and decision-making easier. The selection of the metrics depends on the overall goal and the context of the transition. Multiple metrics for one indicator can be used to provide a clear understanding of the impact of the plan and can also be analyzed through multiple disciplinary perspectives. To understand how planning for sustainable land use can be integrated with resilience and sustainable energy planning to transition communities to renewable energy, metrics should reflect the desired objectives. For this purpose, the study aims to utilize metrics that comprehensively evaluate energy transition plans for communities via a multidisciplinary approach. The attributes developed can assist in selecting the proper metrics that provide a better understanding of the impact of transition plans. These attributes are developed based on the gaps and challenges identified in the review of metrics and are summarized in Table 8.
These attributes were used to select the metrics that can assist in measuring the performance and impact of the community energy transition plan. Each metric identified in the literature was reviewed based on its use and reviews in previous studies and their alignment with the developed attributes. The relevance of each metric was assessed based on its theoretical application in the literature. A metric is considered relevant if it directly measures or influences the outcomes of the transition objectives within its dimension. For instance, within the environmental dimension, the ‘Total Emissions’ metric is highly relevant because it quantifies the environmental impact of energy system, while ‘Water Footprint Component’ has a lower significance for the energy transition according to the findings of Hammond et al. [75]. Similarly, in the technical dimension, the ‘Renewable Energy Fraction’ metric is highly relevant as it indicates the share of renewable energy in the total energy mix, a critical factor in assessing the progress of the energy transition. The other attributes were evaluated in a similar manner, where the ease of application was either categorized as easy to apply or not. The availability of input data was classified as either generally available or variable. This variability depends on factors associated with published results, technical simulation, or publicly available data sources. The reliability of the metrics was rated as either high, moderate, or low. Lastly, the attribute comparability was assigned as either comparable or not based on the ability of the metric to track changes over time or across different scenarios.
To translate the qualitative assessment of the metrics into a quantifiable format for analysis and visualization, a scoring system was used where each qualitative level was given a numerical value. The scoring criteria are as follows:
High and Easy are assigned a value of 3, reflecting optimal conditions or the highest degree of relevance or ease of application.
Medium or Moderate levels are given a value of 2, indicating an intermediate state.
Hard and Data Availability Varies are scored as 1, denoting challenging conditions or inconsistent data availability.
These numerical values allow for the aggregation of scores across different attributes of the metrics. The sum of these scores for each metric provided a composite score that was visualized using a sunburst heat map diagram (Figure 2). The diagram offered a visual representation for quickly identifying metrics suitable for the CREC transition framework. The lighter colors for each dimension represent the lower scores among each attribute, while the darkest shades represent the higher scores. This integrated diagram offers valuable insights into the areas where most metrics have been thoroughly developed and can be effectively utilized in the study. It also enables the identification of areas that require more focus and additional metrics to measure the impact across these dimensions.
The analysis of the metrics for the CREC transition has identified a total of 18 key metrics that are significant to assessing the transition pathway across different dimensions. Specifically, eight were found to be most relevant in the technical dimension, emphasizing the importance of providing a reliable energy source [105]. These metrics highlight technical feasibility in terms of energy efficiency, intensity, load house and range, RE consumption and fraction, and unserved hours in energy transition [78,79,83,85].
In the environmental dimension, the study identified four key metrics that primarily focus on estimating carbon emissions and the impact on land use [43,70,71,72,77], highlighting the need to address climate change and promote environmentally sustainable energy transition. The economic dimension, a major determinant in energy transition, has three identified metrics. These metrics are crucial for providing data to attract capital, promote investment [106], and ensure the economic viability of energy transition [89,94,96].
Social aspects, particularly those addressing equity and justice, have gained increased traction in recent years [107]. The study identified two common metrics for measuring accessibility and exposure to pollutants [12], thereby highlighting the need for a more comprehensive tool to understand the impact of transition scenarios on communities and their well-being.
Despite the high impact of policy and institutional dimensions on the transition decision and pathway, it was found to be underrepresented. Only one metric was identified, ‘Presence of Renewable Energy Policies’. These policies influence the decision-making process and the direction of the transition from the initial stages [41,97]. This highlights the need for more focused research in this area that can trigger the energy transition by creating room to encourage the transition to renewable energy [108]. It is essential to have a clear method to measure the policies developed and their impact on the transition pathway [109].
5.3. Classification of Metrics Based on Clean Renewable Energy Communities Transition Objectives
The CREC framework focuses on three main objectives: efficiency, reliability, and accessibility. Each of these objectives contains several key aspects that refer to the specific area of components within each objective, as outlined in the Table 9.
These objectives were used to further classify the 18 metrics that were selected based on the evaluation criteria in Section 5.2 and presented in the sunburst diagram that are crucial to each aspect of CREC. To better understand the relevance of each metric to the objective, the following matrix was developed as a guidance tool.
The matrix in Table 10 serves as a practical tool that allows the evaluation of the metrics alignment with the objectives of the framework, enabling informed decisions and achieving specific renewable energy and transition goals. It can also help further identify the direct impact on the CREC transition pathway from the five sustainability dimensions.
6. Future Research and Limitations
The study relies on a thematic literature review method, which may be critiqued for bias and subjectivity in the selection and interpretation of sources. While there are many tools used to assess the impact of energy transition, there is no single tool that can cover the different impacts, and thus the choice requires a guiding framework that supports the decision-making process [110]. The study focuses on categorizing the metrics from a sustainability perspective. However, it does not address the important aspects of assessing the infrastructure capacities through grid integration, energy management through smart systems, and behavioral change. These aspects also have an impact on evaluating the transition to renewable energy. Additionally, while the interpretation of the metrics was based on the developed framework earlier in the study, and the diagrams developed were aimed to simplify the complex process, the interpretation remains subjective, and the metrics selected may have not fully covered the complexity of the energy transition.
To overcome this limitation, future research should include a systematic review to cover all metrics used across multiple disciplines to measure the impact of renewable energy transition. This can enhance the validity and reliability of the findings. It can also assist in understanding which metrics are used more commonly, and what types of tools and methodologies are better suited to aiding decision-making in planning the transition to renewable energy. Future research should also cover a broader impact on the transition by identifying the stages of energy transition and the decisions required during each stage. This will help in identifying suitable metrics that can guide decisions rather than measuring the performance at irrelevant times of the transition pathways. Future research in this area should aim to deepen our understanding of the relationships between various variables that contribute to the efficiency, accessibility, and reliability of the energy system in the built environment. This involves analyzing how sustainable land use practices can facilitate the transition to renewable energy and contribute to the resilience of energy systems.
7. Conclusions
As the transition to low carbon spreads, policymakers, planners, and other stakeholders are increasingly faced with decisions that will affect the future landscape and transition pathway. Each pathway will have a different impact on the environmental, human, economic, and future development at the local, regional, and global levels. While this is recognized as a common problem, the spread of the transition requires measuring the performance of each pathway via a multidisciplinary approach. To support these efforts, this review has identified several metrics that have been used to evaluate transition from multiple perspectives, either individually or together, to give a broader understanding. These metrics were categorized based on the sustainability dimensions that guided the framework developed in this study.
Evaluating community energy transition plans, particularly those aiming to shift completely from centralized fossil fuel systems to decentralized renewable sources, is a complex process that requires a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the plans. The framework developed in this study can guide the selection of metrics during scenario development for the transition pathway and can inform the long-term planning decisions that affect land use, economic growth, selection of technologies, and energy sources that can provide a reliable supply to ensure system resiliency. It can also support stakeholders, communities, and policymakers to consider energy transition as a key element in land development. With thoughtful planning, the potential conflict between renewable energy and preservation of other built environment land uses, farmland, and natural areas can be mitigated. Planners can integrate the transition to decarbonize the energy section as an integral part of the future.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Data is contained within the article or
The Authors would like to acknowledge the support from the Open Access Publishing Fund administered through the University of Arkansas Libraries. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, which significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Sunburst chart for metrics evaluation that can guide the performance of clean renewable energy community transition based on their relevance to the framework, ease of application of the metrics, the availability and quality of metrics input data, reliability of the metrics output, and the ability to compare outcomes over time or across different decisions.
Summary of the adopted terminology relating to energy transition.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Dimension | A factor that affects or is affected by the transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy sources. The dimensions are environmental, social, technical, economic, and political and institutional. |
| Indicator | Quantitative or qualitative measurement or value that describes the current or forecasted trend of sustainability dimensions and objectives. |
| Metric | A way to measure the progress and impact of the transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon renewable sources, including combinations of one or more methods, and a value that reflects changes in energy supply, demand, efficiency, reliability, emissions, and economics over time. |
Sustainable energy dimensions.
| Sustainable Dimensions | Description |
|---|---|
| Environmental | Deals with ecological health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. |
| Technical | Focuses on infrastructure, technology, and resource efficiency. |
| Social | Addresses community well-being, equity, and quality of life. |
| Economic | Considers economic viability, job creation, and affordability. |
| Political and Institutional | Involves governance, policies, and stakeholder engagement. |
Summary of the environmental dimension metrics for renewable energy transition.
| Dimensions | Indicators | Metrics | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | GHG Emission | Total Emissions | The total emission quantifies the direct and indirect emissions of energy. | [ |
| Carbon Intensity | The amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of energy produced. | [ | ||
| Waste Generated | Waste Footprint Component | The quantity of waste generated during energy production and consumption activities. | [ | |
| Water Consumption | Water Footprint Component | The amount of water used in energy production processes is often expressed as a water footprint. | [ | |
| Natural Resources | Natural Resource Depletion or Abiotic Depletion | Used to assess the impact of resource depletion in life cycle assessment. | [ | |
| Land Use | Land Use Energy Intensity | The energy required to transform land for energy production is often measured per unit area. | [ | |
| Absolute Area of Land converted | The total land area required to supply energy needs and offset carbon emissions. | [ | ||
| Annual Land Transformation | The extent of land converted for energy production purposes on an annual basis. | [ | ||
| Lifetime Land Transformation | The duration over which transformed land returns to its original state after energy use. | [ | ||
| Land-Use Efficiency | The capacity of energy in land area occupied. | [ | ||
| Energy Footprint | It is the land needed to supply energy and land needed to offset CO2 by plantation. | [ | ||
| Land Occupation Metric | The area of transformed land and the time needed for full recovery to its original state. | [ | ||
| Ecological Footprint | Carbon Sequestration | The global biological system affects the world’s carbon cycle through biological processes. | [ |
Summary of the technical dimension metrics for renewable energy transition.
| Dimensions | Indicators | Metrics | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical | Renewable Energy Share | Renewable Energy Fraction | The percentage of energy derived from renewable sources compared to total energy consumption. | [ |
| System Generation | Residual Load Range | The expected number of hours per year when system demand exceeds generating capacity. | [ | |
| Surplus Energy | The expected number of days per year when available generation exceeds daily peak demand. | [ | ||
| Power System Flexibility | The system’s power ability to cope with uncertainty and not affect reliability and economy. | [ | ||
| Insufficient Ramping Resource Expectation (IRRE) | A metric used to measure the system flexibility for long-term planning. | [ | ||
| System Efficiency | Energy Efficiency | The average efficiency of energy conversion and utilization processes within the system. | [ | |
| Total Final Consumption (TFC) | The consumption of energy carriers such as solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels and electricity to fulfill this service demand. | [ | ||
| Total Primary Energy (TPE) | The primary energy required to produce these energy carriers. | [ | ||
| Loss of Power Supply (LPSP) Probability | The metric is used to assess system reliability by measuring the risk of inadequate power supply to load requirement. | [ | ||
| Energy Intensity | The total final renewable energy consumption per unit of economic output. | [ | ||
| System Security | Full Load Hours of Generation | The time needed for a power plant to operate at full capacity to produce a certain amount of energy. | [ | |
| System Performance | Net Energy Ratio (NER) | Measures the ratio of total energy output to total energy input of the system. | [ | |
| Adequacy | Loss of Load Hours (LOLH) | The expected number of hours per year when system demand exceeds generating capacity. | [ | |
| Loss of Load Expectancy | The average frequency of power supply interruptions. | [ | ||
| Loss of Load Probability | The probability of system peak or hourly demand exceeding generating capacity. | [ | ||
| Loss of Load Events | The number of events where system load is not served due to capacity deficiency in a year. | [ | ||
| Reliability | Expected Unserved Energy (EUE) | The expected total energy not supplied to any load buses, regardless of cause or location. | [ | |
| Expected Energy Not Supplied | The expected total energy not supplied to any load buses, regardless of cause or location. | [ | ||
| Energy Index of Unreliability (EIU) | The expected total energy not supplied divided by the total energy demand. | [ | ||
| Energy Index of Reliability (EIR) | The ratio of the total energy supplied to the total energy demand. | [ | ||
| System Minutes | The total duration of system-wide interruptions in energy supply over a specific period. | [ | ||
| Average Interruption Time (AIT) | The average duration of system-wide interruptions in energy supply over a specified period. | [ |
Summary of the social dimension metrics for renewable energy transition.
| Dimensions | Indicators | Metrics | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social | Equitable | Changes in Energy Expenditures | Percentage of household income spent on energy bills, indicating the affordability of energy. | [ |
| Secure | Energy Burden | The percentage of household income spent on energy bills. | [ | |
| Accessible | Energy Access | The availability and affordability of energy services to meet basic needs, such as lighting, cooking, heating, cooling, etc. | [ | |
| Acceptable | Community Acceptance | The level of public support for and acceptance of renewable energy projects in local communities. | [ | |
| Health Impacts and Pollutant Exposure | Occupational Pollutant Concentration | The concentration of pollutants in workplaces associated with energy production activities. | [ | |
| Proximity to Resource Extraction | Distance from residential areas to resource extraction sites, indicating environmental impact. | [ |
Summary of the economic dimension metrics for renewable energy transition.
| Dimensions | Indicators | Metrics | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic | Energy Affordability | Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) | The average cost of energy production over the lifetime of a project, excluding subsidies. | [ |
| Cost of Valued Energy (COVE) | Improved valuation metric that accounts for time-dependent electricity prices. | [ | ||
| Resource Cost | Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP) | The total value of goods and services produced within a country, adjusted for inflation. | [ | |
| Employment | Jobs Created per Installed Capacity | The number of jobs created by renewable energy projects measured based on the energy capacity, including direct, indirect, and induced jobs. | [ | |
| Financial Viability Over Time | Energy Payback Time (EPBT) | Time required to generate the same amount of energy that has been invested into the system over the entire lifecycle as primary energy. | [ | |
| Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) | The ratio of energy delivered by an energy source to the energy required to extract it. | [ | ||
| Total Net Present Cost | It assesses the component costs over a lifetime. | [ | ||
| Cost Effectiveness | Cost per Unit of Energy Saved | The cost of implementing a renewable energy project divided by the amount of energy saved. | [ |
Summary of the political and institutional dimension metrics for renewable energy transition.
| Dimensions | Indicators | Metrics | Definition | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Political and Institutional | Participation | Public Participation in Energy Planning | The involvement and influence of stakeholders, such as consumers, communities, civil society, etc., in energy planning and management. | [ |
| Policy Support | Renewable Energy Policies | The presence and effectiveness of policies that support renewable energy development, such as feed-in tariffs, tax incentives, etc. | [ | |
| Regulatory Certainty | The stability and predictability of the regulatory environment for renewable energy projects. | [ | ||
| Institutional Capacity | Institutional Capacity for Renewable Energy | The ability of institutions to plan, implement, and manage renewable energy projects. | [ |
Metrics evaluation attributes for CREC transition framework.
| Attributes | Definition |
|---|---|
| Relevance | It must be associated with one or more of the dimensions of the framework. |
| Ease of application | It has a clear tool, methodology, or approach to measure energy transition performance. |
| Input data availability and quality | The required input is clear. |
| Reliable | The output results can be interpreted. |
| Comparable | Can be tracked over time. |
Main objectives and aspects of CREC transition according to the framework.
| Objectives | Aspects | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | Operational Efficiency | Refers to optimizing processes, minimizing waste, and achieving maximum output while considering social, economic, and environmental aspects. |
| Resource Efficiency | Focuses on using resources (land, energy, materials, financial resources, etc.) effectively to transition communities to clean renewable energy. | |
| Productivity | Indicates how efficiently resources, including land and energy potential, are transformed into valuable outputs. | |
| Reliability | Dependability | Reflects the reliability and predictability of energy services. |
| Continuity | Addresses uninterrupted energy supply and consistent performance. | |
| Accessibility | Equitable Access | Highlights fair and inclusive availability of energy services for all, regardless of socioeconomic factors, through energy distribution and policy development that facilitates and supports energy transition. |
| Affordability | Considers the financial accessibility of energy services. |
Matrix of metrics categorized based on CREC transition framework objectives.
| Metric/Objectives | Carbon Intensity | Waste Footprint Component | Land Use Energy Intensity | Land Use Efficiency | Renewable Energy fraction | Residual Load Range | Energy Efficiency | Total Primary Energy | Loss of Power Supply Probability | Full Load Hours of Generation | Net Energy Ratio | Expected Unserved Energy | Energy Access | Occupational Pollutant Concentration | Cost of Valued Energy | Energy Return on Energy Investment | Cost per Unit of Energy Saved | Renewable Energy Policies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| Reliability | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| Accessibility | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Minx, J.W. Comprehensive. Earth Syst. Sci. Data; 2021; 13, pp. 5213-5252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021]
2. Bogdanov, D.G. Full Energy Sector Transition towards 100% Renewable Energy Supply: Integrating Power, Heat, Transport and Industry Sectors Including Desalination. Appl. Energy; 2021; 283, 116273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116273]
3. Bhattarai, U.; Maraseni, T.; Apan, A. Assay of Renewable Energy Transition: A Systematic Literature Review. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 33, 155159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155159]
4. Adedoyin, F.; Bekun, F.; Alola, A. Growth Impact of Transition from Non-Renewable to Renewable Energy in the EU: The Role of Research and Development Expenditure. Renew. Energy; 2020; 159, pp. 1139-1145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.015]
5. Shandiz, S.F. Resilience Framework and Metrics for Energy Master Planning of Communities. Energy; 2020; 203, 117856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117856]
6. Smith, P.; Gregory, P.J.; Van Vuuren, D.; Obersteiner, M.; Havlík, P.; Rounsevell, M.; Woods, J.; Stehfest, E.; Bellarby, J. Competition for Land. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.; 2010; 365, pp. 2941-2957. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0127] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713395]
7. United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results 2022; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
8. Becker, J.; Kaza, N. Tale of Two Sprawls: Energy Planning and Challenges for Smart Growth. Handbook on Smart Growth Promise, Principles, and Prospects for Planning; Knaap, G.J.; Lewis, R.; Chakraborty, A.; June-Friesen, K. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 291-306.
9. Horner, R.; Clark, C. Characterizing Variability and Reducing Uncertainty in Estimates of Solar Land Use Energy Intensity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2013; 23, pp. 129-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.014]
10. Omri, E.; Nouri Chtourou, N.; Bazin, D. Technological, Economic, Institutional, and Psychosocial Aspects of the Transition to Renewable Energies: A Critical Literature Review of a Multidimensional Process. Renew. Energy Focus; 2022; 43, pp. 37-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2022.08.004]
11. Rosen, M. Energy Sustainability: A Pragmatic Approach and Illustrations. Sustainability; 2009; 1, pp. 50-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su1010055]
12. Kime, S. Evaluating Equity and Justice in Low-Carbon Energy Transitions. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2023; 18, 123003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad08f8]
13. Mar, A.; Pereira, P.; Martins, J. Resilience Metrics Applied to Renewable Energy Communities. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 17th International Conference on Compatibility, Power Electronics and Power Engineering (CPE-POWERENG); Tallinn, Estonia, 14–16 June 2023; pp. 1-5.
14. Akella, A.K.; Saini, R.; Sharma, M. Social, Economical and Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Systems. Renew. Energy; 2009; 34, pp. 390-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.002]
15. Kabeyi, M.; Olanrewaju, O. Sustainable Energy Transition for Renewable and Low Carbon Grid Electricity Generation and Supply. Front. Energy Res.; 2022; 9, 743114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.743114]
16. Andrews, J. Energy Conversion Goes Local: Implications for Planners. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 2008; 74, pp. 231-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360801993531]
17. Holechek, J.; Geli, H. A Global Assessment: Can Renewable Energy Replace Fossil Fuels by 2050?. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 4792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14084792]
18. Kirkman, R. At Home in the Seamless Web: Agency, Obduracy, and the Ethics of Metropolitan Growth. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values; 2009; 34, pp. 234-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243907309631]
19. Fulcher, J.; Scott, J. Sociology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999.
20. Fisher, L. Community” as a Reference for American Minority Groups: A Theory of Unintended Negative Consequences. Open J. Soc.; 2017; 5, pp. 224-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.56020]
21. Moroni, S. Energy Communities in Distributed-Energy Scenario: Four Different Kinds of Community Arragements. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR; Bisello, D.V.A. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 429-437.
22. Spasova, D.; Braungardt, S. The EU Policy Framework for Energy Communities. Energy Communities: Customer-Centered, Market-Driven, Welfare-Enhancing?. Energy Power; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 25-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91135-1.00022-5]
23. Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community Renewable Energy: What Should It Mean?. Energy Policy; 2008; 36, pp. 497-500. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019]
24. Seyfang, G.; Haxeltine, A. Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable. Energy Transit.; 2012; 30, pp. 381-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c10222]
25. Schoor, T.; Scholtens, B. Power to the People: Local Community Initiatives and the Transition to Sustainable Energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2015; 43, pp. 666-675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.089]
26. Henderson, J.; Sen, A. The Energy Transition: Key Challenges for Incumbent and New Players in the Global Energy System; The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies: Oxford, UK, 2021.
27. Saraji, M.; Streimikiene, D. Challenges to the Low Carbon Energy Transition: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Energy Strategy Rev.; 2023; 49, 101163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101163]
28. Iddrisu, I.; Bhattacharyya, S. Sustainable Energy Development Index: A Multi-Dimensional Indicator for Measuring Sustainable Energy Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2015; 50, pp. 513-530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.032]
29. Meadows, D.H. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development; Balaton Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1998.
30. Wang, J.; Zuo, W.; Rhode-Barbarigos, L.; Lu, X.; Wang, J.; Lin, Y. Literature Review on Modeling and Simulation of Energy Infrastructures from a Resilience Perspective. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.; 2019; 183, pp. 360-373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.11.029]
31. Afzal, S.; Mokhlis, H. State-of-the-Art Review on Power System Resilience and Assessment Techniques. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.; 2021; 14, pp. 6107-6121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2020.0531]
32. Panteli, M.M. Metrics and Quantification of Operational and Infrastructure Resilience in Power Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.; 2017; 32, pp. 4732-4742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2017.2664141]
33. Panteli, M.; Mancarella, P. Modeling and Evaluating the Resilience of Critical Electrical Power Infrastructure to Extreme Weather Events. IEEE Spectr. J.; 2017; 11, pp. 1733-1742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2015.2389272]
34. Gui, E.; MacGil, I. Typology of Future Clean Energy Communities: An Exploratory Structure, Opportunities, and Challenges. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2018; 35, pp. 94-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.019]
35. Kiehbadroudinezhad, M. The Role of Energy Security and Resilience in the Sustainability of Green Microgrids: Paving the Way to Sustainable and Clean Production. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess; 2023; 60, 103485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103485]
36. Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y. Principles and Criteria for Assessing Urban Energy Resilience: A Literature Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 60, pp. 1654-1677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.028]
37. Linkov, I.B. Changing the Resilience Paradigm. Nat. Clim. Change; 2014; 4, pp. 407-409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2227]
38. Bhowmik, C.; Bhowmik, S.; Ray, A. Optimal Green Energy Source Selection: An Eclectic Decision. Energy Environ.; 2020; 31, pp. 842-859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19882392]
39. Köhler, J. An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.; 2019; 31, pp. 1-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004]
40. Lv, Y. Transitioning to Sustainable Energy: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Potential of Blockchain Technology. Front. Energy Res.; 2023; 11, 1258044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1258044]
41. Zhang, W.; Li, B.; Xue, R.; Wang, C.; Cao, W. A Systematic Bibliometric Review of Clean Energy Transition: Implications for Low-Carbon Development. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, 0261091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261091] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34860855]
42. Bridge, G. Geographies of Energy Transition: Space, Place and the Low-Carbon Economy. Energy Policy; 2013; 53, pp. 331-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066]
43. Cagle, A.; Shephers, M. Standardized Metrics to Quantify Solar Energy-Land Relationships: A Global Systematic Review. Front. Sustain.; 2023; 3, 1035705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.1035705]
44. Romero-Castro, N.; Miramontes-Viña, V.; López-Cabarcos, M.Á. Understanding the Antecedents of Entrepreneurship and Renewable Energies to Promote the Development of Community Renewable Energy in Rural Areas. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031234]
45. Tennant, J. Web of Science and Scopus Are Not Global Databases of Knowledge. Eur. Sci. Ed.; 2020; 46, e51987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987]
46. Alvarez-Melgarejo, M.; Torres-Barreto, M.L. Resources and Capabilities from Their Very Outset: A Bibliometric Comparison Between Scopus and the Web of Science. Rev. Eur. Stud.; 2018; 10, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p1]
47. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Coverage of Highly-Cited Documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Multidisciplinary Comparison. Scientometrics; 2018; 116, pp. 2175-2188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9]
48. Wu, C.-Y.; Hu, M.-C. The Development Trajectory and Technological Innovation Capabilities in the Global Renewable Energy Industry. Proceedings of the 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET); Portland, OR, USA, 2–6 August 2015; pp. 2574-2580.
49. Malmedal, K.; Kroposki, B.; Sen, P.K. Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Its Impact on Renewable Energy Applications in USA. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting; Tampa, FL, USA, 24–28 June 2007; pp. 1-8.
50. Rosen, M. Sustainability: Concepts, Definitions, and Applications. Building Sustainable Cities; Alvarez-Risco, A.R.-A.-A. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 15-26.
51. Kabeyi, M.; Olanrewaju, O. Managing Sustainability in Electricity Generation; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021.
52. Thrän, D.G. Energy Landscapes of Today and Tomorrow. Energy Sustain. Soc.; 2020; 10, 43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00273-2]
53. Lovering, J.; Swain, M.; Blomqvist, L.; Hernandez, R.R. Land-Use Intensity of Electricity Production and Tomorrow’s Energy Landscape. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, 0270155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35793381]
54. Hachem-Vermette, C. Mixed-Use Solar Neighborhoods. Solar Buildings and Neighborhoods; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 229-264.
55. Boer, C.H. Local Power and Land Use: Spatial Implications for Local Energy Development. Energy Sustain. Soc.; 2015; 5, 31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-015-0059-3]
56. Si, S.; Sun, W.; Wang, Y. A Decentralized Dispatch Model for Multiple Micro Energy Grids System Considering Renewable Energy Uncertainties and Energy Interactions. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy; 2024; 16, 015301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0192716]
57. Della Valle, N.; Bertoldi, P. Promoting Energy Efficiency: Barriers, Societal Needs and Policies. Front. Energy Res.; 2022; 9, 804091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.804091]
58. Silva, M.; Leal, V.; Oliveria, V.; Horta, I. A Scenario-Based Approach for Assessing the Energy Performance of Urban Development Pathways. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2018; 40, pp. 372-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.028]
59. Trepci, E.; Maghelal, P.; Azar, E. Effect of Densification and Compactness on Urban Building Energy Consumption: Case of a Transit-Oriented Development in Dallas, TX. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2020; 56, 101987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101987]
60. O’Brien, W.; Kennedy, C.A. The Relationship between Net Energy Use and the Urban Density of Solar Building. Environ. Plan.; 2010; 37, pp. 1002-1021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b36030]
61. Amini, F.G. Electrical Energy Systems Resilience: A Comprehensive Review on Definitions, Challenges, Enhancements and Future Proceedings. IET Renew. Power Gener.; 2023; 17, pp. 1835-1858. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12705]
62. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Aghaei, S.; Aghbashlo, M.; Kiehbadroudinezhad, M.; Gupta, V.K.; Mohammadi, P. Biodiesel Plants: Real-World Sustainability Analysis Using Environmental and Social Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainable Biodiesel; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 301-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820361-3.00001-2]
63. Singh, S.; Ru, J. Accessibility, Affordability, and Efficiency of Clean Energy: A Review and Research Agenda. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 18333-18347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18565-9]
64. Hoffacker, M.K.; Hernandez, R.R. Local Energy: Spatial Proximity of Energy Providers to Their Power Resources. Front. Sustain.; 2020; 1, 585110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2020.585110]
65. Anvari-Moghaddam, A.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Asadi, S.; Guldstrand Larsen, K.; Shahidehpour, M. Sustainable Energy Systems Planning, Integration, and Management. Appl. Sci.; 2019; 9, 4451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9204451]
66. Anderson, K. Integrating the Value of Electricity Resilience in Energy Planning and Operations Decisions. IEEE Syst. J.; 2021; 15, pp. 204-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2961298]
67. Tryndina, N.; An, J.; Varyash, I.; Litvishko, O.; Khomyakova, L.; Barykin, S.; Kalinina, O. Renewable Energy Incentives on the Road to Sustainable Development during Climate Change: A Review. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2022; 10, 1016803. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1016803]
68. Şengül, Ü.; Eren, M.; Eslamian Shiraz, S.; Gezder, V.; Şengül, A.B. Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Ranking Renewable Energy Supply Systems in Turkey. Renew. Energy; 2015; 75, pp. 617-625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045]
69. Turney, A.; Fthenakis, V. Environmental Impacts from the Installation and Operation of Large-Scale Solar Power Plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2011; 15, pp. 3261-3270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.023]
70. Chen, C. Comparing the Energy Transitions in Germany and China: Synergies and Recommendations. Energy Rep.; 2019; 5, pp. 1249-1260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.087]
71. Mehedi, T.; Gemechu, E.; Kumar, A. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Footprints of Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems. Appl. Energy; 2022; 314, 118918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118918]
72. Kapila, S.; Oni, A.O.; Gemechu, E.D.; Kumar, A. Development of Net Energy Ratios and Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Large-Scale Mechanical Energy Storage Systems. Energy; 2019; 170, pp. 592-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.183]
73. Tran, T.; Egermann, M. Land-Use Implications of Energy Transition Pathways towards Decarbonisation—Comparing the Footprints of Vietnam, New Zealand and Finland. Energy Policy; 2022; 166, 112951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112951]
74. Rej, S.; Nag, B. Land and Clean Energy Trade-off:Estimating India’s Future Land Requirement to Fulfil INDC Commitment. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.; 2021; 15, pp. 1104-1121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-12-2020-0006]
75. Hammond, G.; Howard, H.; Hanumant, R. Environmental and Resource Burdens Associated with Low Carbon, More Electric Transition Pathways to 2050: Footprint Components from Carbon Emissions and Land Use to Waste Arisings and Water Consumption. Glob. Transit.; 2019; 1, pp. 28-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2019.01.001]
76. Davidsson, S.; Höök, M.; Wall, G. A Review of Life Cycle Assessments on Wind Energy Systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.; 2012; 17, pp. 729-742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0397-8]
77. Wen, Y.; Bin Cai, B.; Xinxin Yang, X.; Yusheng Xue, Y. Quantitative Analysis of China’s Low-Carbon Energy Transition. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.; 2020; 119, 105854. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.105854]
78. Gul, E.; Baldinelli, G.; Bartocci, P. Energy Transition: Renewable Energy-Based Combined Heat and Power Optimization Model for Distributed Communities. Energies; 2022; 15, 6740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15186740]
79. Saarinen, L.; Tokimatsi, K. Flexibility Metrics for Analysis of Power System Transition—A Case Study of Japan and Sweden. Renew. Energy; 2021; 170, pp. 764-772. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.121]
80. Olowosejeje, S. A Practical Approach for Increased Electrification, Lower Emissions and Lower Energy Costs in Africa. Sustain. Futur.; 2020; 2, 100022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100022]
81. Guo, Z. Power system flexibility quantitative evaluation based on improved universal generating function method: A case study of Zhangjiakou. Energy; 2020; 205, 117963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117963]
82. Lannoye, E.; Flynn, D.; O’Malley, M. Evaluation of Power System Flexibility. IEEE; 2012; 27, pp. 922-931. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2177280]
83. Kraan, O. The Influence of the Energy Transition on the Significance of Key Energy Metrics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2019; 111, pp. 215-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.032]
84. Elkadeem, M.R.; Younes, A.; Sharshir, S.W.; Campana, P.E.; Wang, S. Sustainable Siting and Design Optimization of Hybrid Renewable Energy. Appl. Energy; 2021; 295, 117071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117071]
85. Heylen, E.; Deconinck, G.; Hertem, D. Review and Classification of Reliability Indicators for Power Systems with a High Share of Renewable Energy Sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2018; 97, pp. 554-568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.032]
86. Kontokosta, C.E.; Reina, V.J.; Bonczak, B. Energy Cost Burdens for Low-Income and Minority Households: Evidence From Energy Benchmarking and Audit Data in Five U.S. Cities J. Am. Plan. Assoc.; 2019; 86, pp. 89-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1647446]
87. Lennon, B.; Dunphy, N.; Sanvicente, E. Community Acceptability and the Energy Transition: A Citizens’ Perspective. Energy Sustain. Soc.; 2019; 9, 35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0218-z]
88. González, A.M.; Sandoval, H.; Acosta, P.; Henao, F. On the Acceptance and Sustainability of Renewable Energy Projects—A Systems Thinking Perspective. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 1171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8111171]
89. Gulagi, A. Current Energy Policies and Possible Transition Scenarios Adopting Renewable Energy: A Case Study for Bangladesh. Renew. Energy; 2020; 155, pp. 899-920. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.119]
90. Abdin, Z.; Mérida, W. Hybrid Energy Systems for Off-Grid Power Supply and Hydrogen Production Based on Renewable Energy: A Techno-Economic Analysis. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2019; 196, pp. 1068-1079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.06.068]
91. Simpson, J.; Loth, E.; Dykes, K. Cost of Valued Energy for Design of Renewable Energy Systems. Renew. Energy; 2020; 153, pp. 290-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.131]
92. Somoye, O.; Ozdeser, H.; Seraj, M. Modeling the Determinants of Renewable Energy Consumption in Nigeria: Evidence from Autoregressive Distributed Lagged in Error Correction Approach. Renew. Energy; 2022; 190, pp. 606-616. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.143]
93. Lui, G. Examining and Prioritizing the Effect of Sustainable Energy on the Job Market to Advance China’s Green Workforce. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e22710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22710]
94. Capellan-Perez, I.; Castro, C.; Gonzalez, L. Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and Material Requirements in Scenarios of Global Transition to Renewable Energies. Energy Strategy Rev.; 2019; 26, 100399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399]
95. Tsai, C.; Beza, T.M.; Molla, E.M.; Kuo, C. Analysis and Sizing of Mini-Grid Hybrid Renewable Energy System for Islands. IEEE Access; 2020; 8, pp. 70013-70029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983172]
96. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Benefits: Measuring the Economics; International Renewable Energy Agency: Masdar City, United Arab Emirates, 2016.
97. Breetz, H.; Mildenberger, M.; Stokes, L. The Political Logics of Clean Energy Transitions. Bus. Politics; 2018; 20, pp. 492-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/bap.2018.14]
98. Laurentis, C.; Pearson, P.J.G. Policy-Relevant Insights for Regional Renewable Energy Deployment. Energy Sustain. Soc.; 2021; 11, 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00295-4]
99. Bauwens, T. Explaining the Diversity of Motivations behind Community Renewable Energy. Energy Policy; 2016; 93, pp. 278-290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.017]
100. Ahi, P.; Searcy, C.; Jaber, M. Energy-Related Performance Measures Employed in Sustainable Supply Chains: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2016; 7, pp. 2352-5509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.02.001]
101. Engel-Cox, J.; Chapman, A. Accomplishments and Challenges of Metrics for Sustainable Energy, Population, and Economics as Illustrated through Three Countries. Front. Sustain. Energy Policy; 2023; 2, 1203520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsuep.2023.1203520]
102. Buytaert, V. Owards Integrated Sustainability Assessment for Energetic Use of Biomass: A State of the Art Evaluation of Assessment Tools. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2011; 15, pp. 3918-3933. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.036]
103. Jumare, I.A.; Bhandari, R.; Zerga, A. Assessment of a Decentralized Gridconnected Photovoltaic (PV)/Wind/Biogas Hybrid Power System in Northern Nigeria. Energy Sustain. Soc.; 2020; 10, 30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00260-7]
104. Barlow, J.; Tapio, R.; Tarekegne, B. Advancing the State of Energy Equity Metrics. Electr. J.; 2022; 35, 107208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2022.107208]
105. Niu, M.; Xu, N.Z.; Kong, X.; Ngin, H.T.; Ge, Y.Y.; Liu, J.S.; Liu, Y.T. Reliability Importance of Renewable Energy Sources to Overall Generating Systems. IEEE Access; 2021; 9, pp. 20450-20459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3055354]
106. Mahmudi, S. The Financial Metrics and Risk Management Tools in Supporting Renewable Energy Investment. International. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 12, pp. 238-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i8/14516]
107. Baker, E.; Goldstein, A.P.; Azevedo, I.M. A Perspective on Equity Implications of Net Zero Energy Systems. Energy Clim. Change; 2021; 2, 100047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100047]
108. Goyal, N.; Taeihagh, A.; Howlett, M. Whither Policy Innovation? Mapping Conceptual Engagement with Public Policy in Energy Transitions Research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 89, 102632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102632]
109. Gatto, A.; Drago, C. When Renewable Energy, Empowerment, and Entrepreneurship Connect: Measuring Energy Policy Effectiveness in 230 Countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2021; 78, 101977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101977]
110. Curran, M. Assessing Environmental Impacts of Biofuels Using Lifecycle-based Approaches. Manag. Environ. Qual.; 2013; 24, pp. 34-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831311291122]
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
