Leveraging Social Innovation Tools for Advancing Innovative Technologies Towards a Just Energy Transition in Greece

Abstract

This study investigates the social and economic dimensions of Greece’s energy transition, focusing on the distinct contexts of mainland Western Macedonia and Insular Greece. Utilizing social innovation tools, including the Stakeholder Persona and the Iceberg Model, the research reveals significant regional variations in stakeholder concerns, priorities, and awareness levels regarding energy transition issues. Findings indicate that while Insular Greece prioritizes energy security and public acceptance of renewable energy solutions, mainland Greece emphasizes job security and economic diversification. The study highlights the necessity for tailored energy transition strategies that address local needs and foster community engagement. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of enhancing awareness and understanding of methodologies such as Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis to empower stakeholders in making informed decisions. Integrating insights from various layers of the Iceberg Model, this research provides a framework for developing innovative technologies and policies that support a fair and sustainable energy transition in Greece, ensuring that no community is left behind in the global shift towards sustainability. This comprehensive approach seeks to mitigate environmental impacts but also to create economic opportunities that align with each community’s social and cultural fabric.

1. Introduction

The transition toward climate neutrality forges not only a shift in renewable technologies but also in societal structures, norms, and behaviors. Achieving a just energy transition—defined as a deliberate process that ensures fairness, inclusion, and equity for all stakeholders affected by decarbonization [1]—demands approaches that extend beyond technical solutions. In this context, social innovation (SI) emerges as a crucial enabler. It refers to new ideas, practices, or models that meet social needs more effectively than existing approaches and, in doing so, empower actors, enhancing participation and creating inclusive solutions for sustainable transitions [2]. SI plays a vital role, encompassing new social practices, participatory mechanisms, and governance frameworks that actively involve citizens, communities, and other non-traditional actors in shaping energy futures and aligning technological advancements with societal expectations [3].

While the European Union (EU) has taken the global lead with ambitious frameworks—such as the European Green Deal [4], the Clean Energy for All Europeans Package [5], the Innovation Fund, [6], and the New European Bauhaus [7], fostering citizen-centered solutions—a gap remains between policy ambitions and on-the-ground realities, particularly in structurally vulnerable regions. Existing research has acknowledged this disconnect, but the localized social dynamics that influence energy transition outcomes remain underexplored, especially in regions with unique socio-economic profiles. For example, while sustainable and resilient energy infrastructure often receives broad approval for its environmental benefits, many still back fossil fuel investments due to the perceived economic advantages [8]. This paradox, often described as a reverse Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome [9], reveals the complexity of local acceptance, where communities may resist fossil fuels environmentally but support them economically.

Greece offers a compelling case study due to its dual context in two regions with diverse structural characteristics (e.g., geography, local economy, priority sectors): Western Macedonia, a lignite-dependent region undergoing rapid lignite deindustrialization, and Insular Greece, where energy insecurity and fossil fuel reliance persist. Despite these regions’ strategic importance, there is little empirical research that systematically explores the social dimensions of energy transition at the regional level using structured SI tools. This study addresses this gap by applying two participatory social innovation methods—the Stakeholder Persona and the Iceberg Model—to map stakeholder perceptions, hidden system drivers, and cultural assumptions. Our central hypothesis is that applying SI tools in diverse regional contexts through active engagement of quadruple-helix actors, i.e., academia, businesses, civil society, and government, reveals not only shared challenges but also distinct socio-cultural patterns that can guide the development of locally attuned, energy transition-relevant innovative solutions [10] linking technological development with societal relevance [11]. The rest of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical background on SI and its relevance to energy transitions. Section 3 outlines the methodological approach and tools used based on prior applications of SI tools across various contexts [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Section 4 and Section 5 present and interpret the findings from workshops held in Western Macedonia and Insular Greece. The findings inform the development of software, used as a test innovation technology case, designed to perform Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the environmental and economic impact of buildings’ and districts’ energy systems [19]. Finally, Section 6 discusses implications for policy and innovation design, contributing to a growing body of literature that seeks to address the challenges faced by innovators in integrating social considerations into their innovations.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1. Role of EU Innovation Ecosystems in the Energy Transition Process

Energy transition is expected to reshape social, economic, and environmental systems, traditionally reliant on fossil fuels [20,21]. Literature on sociotechnical transitions emphasizes the role of innovative ecosystems in fostering collaboration among companies, governments, academia, and investors, enabling sustainable technologies to scale by providing the resources needed to overcome commercialization barriers. However, regional disparities in innovation capacity persist across Europe. EU regional innovation ecosystems present varying performance and challenges across its 27 Member States; “Innovation Leaders” benefit from advanced infrastructures and favorable regulations; “Strong Innovators” excel through robust academia–industry ties, and substantial access to public and private funding. “Moderate Innovators” produce high-quality research amidst a growing entrepreneurial culture but face resource fragmentation that hampers commercialization efforts. “Emerging Innovators” struggle with weak entrepreneurial support mechanisms, risk-averse investment cultures, and low innovation uptake. Greece, characterized as a moderate innovator, faces challenges aligning research with market needs.

Building upon existing literature, this study synthesizes six key challenges for integrating innovations into value chains while addressing societal needs in achieving just energy transition. These six key challenges are drawn from interdisciplinary literature on energy policy, innovation systems, and regional development and are presented in

Table 1. Key challenges and mitigation measures within the energy transition.

A/A	Challenge	Mitigation Measure
#1	Innovation-society gap	Engage diverse stakeholders for impactful solutions
#2	Prolonged sustainability innovation	Build collaborations among industry–community partners and raise public awareness
#3	Lack of entrepreneurial expertise	Maximize impact through understanding market dynamics
#4	Outdated regulations hinder sustainable solutions	Foster collaboration through technology integration
#5	Job market challenges	Align workers’ skills with green sector needs
#6	Energy poverty	Funding retrofits and supporting community investments

. These six challenges were prioritized based on their recurrent identification in transition literature and empirical studies linking them to EU ecosystem barriers [22,23,24,25,26].

• Challenge #1. Misalignment between research-driven solutions and real-world societal needs impedes market adoption and the effectiveness of innovations in the energy transition process.

Researchers, often driven by academic curiosity or technological possibilities, may develop solutions that, while novel, may fail to align with users’ real-world needs, hindering adoption, despite technical promise [27,28]. Start-ups and spin-offs emerging from research and technology organizations (RTOs) and higher education institutions frequently face a weak commercialization pathway and limited support, particularly in moderate and emerging innovation environments, creating barriers to market variability. Overcoming these challenges requires inclusive collaboration across regional and EU innovation ecosystems—engaging communities, societal partners, industry, governance, academia, and local businesses. Such multilateral engagement ensures that solutions are context-relevant and adaptable to evolving societal needs and market dynamics. In the fast-evolving energy sector [29], involving end users in product development fosters more responsive and resilient market outcomes [30].

• Challenge #2. Sustainable technologies are risky and often complex, leading to prolonged time-to-market.

Developing sustainable technologies—such as clean hydrogen, energy storage, alternative aviation fuels, direct air capture, and low-carbon manufacturing—is crucial for achieving climate neutrality by 2050. These solutions require major research, investment, and broad stakeholder engagement, underscoring the need for collaboration across academia, industry, government, and the public. Researchers can boost the success of their innovations by forming targeted partnerships with industry to leverage diverse expertise and resources and ensure solutions are viable, scalable, and market-ready. Growing public awareness of sustainability benefits also fosters acceptance, easing the integration of new technologies [31].

• Challenge #3. Entrepreneurial expertise is lacking.

Researchers must possess not only technical expertise but also a diverse skill set that enables them to effectively navigate the increasingly complex business landscape surrounding these deep tech solutions. Understanding market dynamics, regulatory environments, and the economic and societal implications of their research can maximize its impact and commercial potential [32].

• Challenge #4. Successful deployment of sustainable solutions can be hindered by outdated regulations that fail to keep pace with technological advancements.

Researchers may often overlook the complex nature of policy and regulatory factors that may impact the exploitation and/or commercialization of their work and must grasp the connections between regulations and market alternatives to develop new technologies that will be integrated smoothly and effectively [8]. When methodologies, tools, and digital technologies combine quadruple helix perspectives into the scheduling of commercialization activities and business development, ecosystem actors can work together successfully.

• Challenge #5. Job market faces challenges in lignite-dependent regions amid green sector growth.

As the renewable energy and circular economy sectors grow, traditional fossil fuel industries like lignite mining face decline, leading to significant job losses, especially among middle-aged male workers already impacted by the transition. Many may struggle to find new opportunities, lowering employment rates, while skill mismatches could force relocation or wage reductions [20,33]. Investing in emerging industries and upskilling programs for green economy roles can help ease this transition.

• Challenge #6. Energy transition may lead to increased risks of energy poverty.

High upfront costs of renewable energy (RES) can limit access for low-income households, deepening socioeconomic inequality [20,25,34,35]. Meanwhile, reliance on expensive fossil fuels raises energy bills in the residential and transport sectors. Addressing energy poverty through innovative business models, efficiency programs, and grants for retrofits or appliances can help vulnerable groups reduce consumption and costs [36]. Energy Communities (ECs) also enable collective investment in RES, easing financial strain, while equitable policy frameworks ensure that low-income households are supported during the transition.

2.2. Role of Social Innovation Methods and Tools in Designing a Just Energy Transition and Theoritical Framework

This section outlines the theoretical foundations that inform the methodological choices of this study, particularly the use of Social Innovation (SI), Design Thinking (DT), and Systems Thinking (ST) in shaping inclusive and context-sensitive energy transitions. These frameworks are not only relevant in addressing the multifaceted social and technical challenges of the transition but also provide a coherent structure for selecting and applying the tools used in the participatory workshops—namely, the Stakeholder Persona and the Iceberg Model. Drawing on interdisciplinary research, this section presents how each approach contributes to understanding and responding to complex systemic change, with emphasis on fostering user-centered, collaborative, and adaptive innovation in energy policy and practice.

To bridge the systemic and social dimensions of transition, SI practices are increasingly applied [37], using ST and DT alongside participatory approaches to generate inclusive, place-based solutions [38]. DT emphasizes empathy, multi-disciplinarity, and experimentation [39], supported by tools such as: the ‘future visioning tool,’ which defines a desired future to steer long-term innovation [40,41,42]; ‘rapid prototyping,’ which enables fast testing and iteration towards a Minimum Viable Product [41]; the ‘service blueprint,’ mapping all service steps to ensure human-centered, collaborative development [39,43]; and the ‘stakeholder persona,’ which profiles user segments to clarify needs, behaviors, and motivations [43].

A growing body of work has also explored ST tools across domains such as healthcare [12], sustainability [13], smart cities [15], education [16], and engineering [17,18]. ST helps map and understand how system elements interconnect and behave [44,45]. Application across fields like ST emphasizes interdependence and uses tools like causal loop diagrams to show how changes in one part of a system can trigger unexpected repercussions or feedback on other functional components of the same system [46,47]. Tools such as ‘trend mapping’ and ‘behavior-over-time’ graphs help visualize variable shifts, supporting deeper insight during innovation development. Utilized frequently in the early stages of the development of innovations, this facilitates a deeper understanding of systemic behavior and the interrelationships among system variables [46]. The Iceberg Model addresses complex problems by distinguishing surface issues from deeper systemic needs, engages stakeholders in identifying root causes, and ensures that products and services reflect the needs of the people they are intended to serve [47].

The effectiveness of ST and DT tools are highly context specific as presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Given that the success of the energy transition hinges on the ability of dynamic innovation ecosystems to address systemic challenges through inclusive and participatory approaches, we strategically selected two tools—one from each methodological tradition. These tools were chosen for their complementary ability to capture both explicit stakeholder concerns and underlying systemic dynamics within participatory settings:

• The Stakeholder Persona, a DT tool suited to capturing user needs and motivations in complex decision environments.
• The Iceberg Model, an ST tool used to visualize how visible events (e.g., energy preferences or behaviors) are shaped by patterns, structures, and underlying mental models.

Table 2. Benefits and limitations of DT tools.

Design Thinking Tools
Tool	Benefits	Limitations	Most Effective	Less Effective
Future visioning tool [48,49,50]	Empowers communities and stakeholders; encourages creative and long-term thinking; facilitates systemic change	Risk of unrealistic expectations; resource-intensive process; challenges in implementation; potential for exclusion, overemphasis on positive scenarios	Engaging communities and stakeholders in long-term projects	When quick results are needed; in limited resources projects
Rapid prototyping [51]	Enhances stakeholder engagement; reduces costs and risks; promotes creativity and innovation; accelerates iterative learning	Time constraints; risk of oversimplification; resource intensive; limited scalability; potential for misalignment	Startups; product development cycles	Large projects
Service blueprint [52]	Comprehensive process mapping; effectively outline customer touchpoints; support for collaborative design; facilitates iterative improvements	Complexity in creation; potential overemphasis on processes; higher need for expertise; the detailed nature of service blueprints can lead to lengthy development cycles	Detailed service design projects (e.g., hospitality, healthcare)	In cases requiring rapid development
Stakeholder persona [52]	Represents typical users; focus on user needs; facilitating creative exploration; enhanced communication among stakeholders; guiding service development	Risk of misrepresentation; static nature; resource intensive; requires thorough market research to avoid oversimplification of user diversity	Services or products targeted at specific user groups	In diverse user environments

Table 2. Benefits and limitations of DT tools.

Design Thinking Tools
Tool	Benefits	Limitations	Most Effective	Less Effective
Future visioning tool [48,49,50]	Empowers communities and stakeholders; encourages creative and long-term thinking; facilitates systemic change	Risk of unrealistic expectations; resource-intensive process; challenges in implementation; potential for exclusion, overemphasis on positive scenarios	Engaging communities and stakeholders in long-term projects	When quick results are needed; in limited resources projects
Rapid prototyping [51]	Enhances stakeholder engagement; reduces costs and risks; promotes creativity and innovation; accelerates iterative learning	Time constraints; risk of oversimplification; resource intensive; limited scalability; potential for misalignment	Startups; product development cycles	Large projects
Service blueprint [52]	Comprehensive process mapping; effectively outline customer touchpoints; support for collaborative design; facilitates iterative improvements	Complexity in creation; potential overemphasis on processes; higher need for expertise; the detailed nature of service blueprints can lead to lengthy development cycles	Detailed service design projects (e.g., hospitality, healthcare)	In cases requiring rapid development
Stakeholder persona [52]	Represents typical users; focus on user needs; facilitating creative exploration; enhanced communication among stakeholders; guiding service development	Risk of misrepresentation; static nature; resource intensive; requires thorough market research to avoid oversimplification of user diversity	Services or products targeted at specific user groups	In diverse user environments

Table 3. Benefits and limitations of ST tools.

Systems Thinking
Tool	Benefits	Limitations	Most Effective	Less Effective
Casual loop [53]	Visual clarity; holistic understanding; identification of leverage points; supports collaborative problem solving	Complexity in application; time-intensive; risk of oversimplification	Environmental issues; organizational dynamics	Straightforward problems; when quick insights are needed
Trend mapping [54]	Supports strategic decision making; foster collaboration among stakeholders; identifies emerging patterns and shifts in societal behavior	Risk of oversimplification complex social phenomena; relies heavily on the availability and accuracy of data; struggle to predict future outcomes with certainty	Market analysis; societal change initiatives	Limited data
Behavior-over-time (BOT) [54,55]	Tracks dynamic changes; encourages systems thinking; facilitates impact evaluation	Time-consuming and resource-intensive; challenging to implement; potential for misinterpretation	Policy changes; social interventions	Quick assessments
Iceberg model [54,55]	Holistic understanding; facilitates root cause analysis; encourages collaborative thinking; promotes critical thinking	Complexity, potential for misinterpretation, requires skilled facilitation, focus on theory over action, ignore or neglect some aspects of a system that do not fit neatly into the framework, oversimplify or distort the complexity and diversity of a system by reducing it to four levels or categories	Organizational change; community problems	Practical applications

Table 3. Benefits and limitations of ST tools.

Systems Thinking
Tool	Benefits	Limitations	Most Effective	Less Effective
Casual loop [53]	Visual clarity; holistic understanding; identification of leverage points; supports collaborative problem solving	Complexity in application; time-intensive; risk of oversimplification	Environmental issues; organizational dynamics	Straightforward problems; when quick insights are needed
Trend mapping [54]	Supports strategic decision making; foster collaboration among stakeholders; identifies emerging patterns and shifts in societal behavior	Risk of oversimplification complex social phenomena; relies heavily on the availability and accuracy of data; struggle to predict future outcomes with certainty	Market analysis; societal change initiatives	Limited data
Behavior-over-time (BOT) [54,55]	Tracks dynamic changes; encourages systems thinking; facilitates impact evaluation	Time-consuming and resource-intensive; challenging to implement; potential for misinterpretation	Policy changes; social interventions	Quick assessments
Iceberg model [54,55]	Holistic understanding; facilitates root cause analysis; encourages collaborative thinking; promotes critical thinking	Complexity, potential for misinterpretation, requires skilled facilitation, focus on theory over action, ignore or neglect some aspects of a system that do not fit neatly into the framework, oversimplify or distort the complexity and diversity of a system by reducing it to four levels or categories	Organizational change; community problems	Practical applications

3. Methodology

This study employed a participatory, mixed-method design integrating two complementary social innovation tools—Stakeholder Persona and the Iceberg Model—to investigate perceptions, challenges, and systemic barriers related to the energy transition in two contrasting Greek regions, Western Macedonia and the Insular Greece, and explore how these findings can inform the development of innovations designed to facilitate the energy transition process.

3.1. Workshop Design and Script Protocol

Two workshops were conducted with structured agendas and standardized facilitation protocols tailored around the Stakeholder Persona and Iceberg Model frameworks. The design for each session was not ad hoc; instead, each session followed a predefined script covering the following:

• Introductory context-setting (objectives, tools, expectations)
• Presentation of innovative technology assisting in decision making for energy systems investments
• Interactive polling via Mentimeter
• Group reflection through panel discussion
• Real-time visual feedback and summary

The protocol ensured consistency across both workshops while allowing space for contextual nuances in participant engagement. The Iceberg Model also provided the organizing structure for the workshop itself, not just the analysis. Its layers—Events, Patterns, Structures, and Mental Models—guided the question design, sequencing, and discussion flow. Likewise, the Stakeholder Persona tool was used early in each session to frame and surface participant identities and concerns. The innovative technology used as a test case in this study is VERIFY, a digital decision-support tool developed by the Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH). VERIFY provides real-time environmental and economic performance analysis for a wide range of energy systems operating across electricity, heating, cooling, and gas networks. Built on advanced Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) methodologies, the tool facilitates sustainability-driven decision-making by identifying environmental risks and optimizing investment strategies throughout the energy system lifecycle. It outputs critical indicators such as Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reductions, CO₂ payback time, and Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—enabling users to assess both the climate impact and financial feasibility of proposed interventions. The interface allows for dynamic scenario modeling, tailored to varying building typologies and energy mixes. While this paper focuses on the tool’s social relevance and participatory application, other studies [19] include technical validation and benchmarking, which further enhances its replicability and utility in broader transition contexts [56].

3.2. Tool Description and Application

3.2.1. The Stakeholder Persona

The Stakeholder Persona tool is particularly effective in contexts where diverse stakeholder groups interact in complex processes, such as energy transition planning, product design, or service design. It helps distill complex, heterogeneous user groups into representative, manageable personas that reflect shared characteristics and priorities, thereby enabling focused discussions around user needs and challenges. The implementation of the tool involved the identification of key user categories, and the collection of demographics (age, gender, employment), psychographic (values, attributes, interests), and behavioral data (motivations or emotions). The goal was to create a limited number of people who could serve as meaningful archetypes to guide discussion and communication throughout the design and refinement of the test-case technology. Users were then clustered based on common attributes with the aim of having a manageable number of user types to build focus and more effective communication. This persona categorization delineates the “opportunity space”, enabling the innovation team to align product development with the specific needs, expectations, and decision-making behaviors of different user segments.

To develop grounded personas, the authors compiled a preliminary list of potential users informed by the innovator’s insights, design principles, value hypotheses, and ethnographic studies. The technology’s user base spans key stakeholders in sustainable energy transitions: (a) building designers and engineers, who integrate environmental criteria into system design; (b) urban planners, aligning energy systems with community development; (c) energy companies and utilities, responsible for deployment and operation; (d) decision-makers, requiring robust data for informed policy and risk management; (e) investors, seeking reliable, compliant, and profitable solutions; (f) researchers, prioritizing data access and collaboration with industry partners to advance innovation; and (g) citizens, valuing transparent, affordable, and sustainable energy services (Figure 1).

This classification supported both the design of the participatory sessions and the subsequent analysis of feedback, ensuring that the insights gained were grounded in the lived realities of key stakeholder groups.

3.2.2. Tool Application—The Iceberg Model

The Iceberg Model provided the framework for analyzing the relationship between observable behaviors, such as technology adoption rates, and underlying influences, like cultural beliefs, social norms, and economic barriers. It examines four levels: events, patterns, structures, and mental models (Figure 2), enabling a deep exploration of root causes. This layered approach progressively moves from observable manifestations (the “tip of the iceberg”) to hidden cultural, institutional, and cognitive drivers (the “bulk of the iceberg”). The tool enables a more holistic understanding of stakeholder behaviors and preferences related to energy transition technologies. This framework was used to reveal if the test case technology is aligned with the values, constraints, and priorities of its intended users.

Events (What Is Happening Now)

The first level ‘Events’ (Tip of the Iceberg) captures observable behaviors and interactions related to the technology, such as adoption rates, usage frequency, and user feedback. In this study, however, no direct interaction with technology occurred; observations were limited to tracking participation in introductory events. While useful for gauging initial engagement, these events do not fully reveal deeper motivations, preferences, or barriers that influence long-term adoption.

Patterns (Trends over Time)

The ‘Patterns’ level focuses on identifying recurring behaviors across time, which can help innovators understand how various stakeholders might use a technology. Common themes were analyzed to identify recurring challenges and benefits of the test case technology, providing insights into user profiles and informing strategies to improve technology adoption.

Structures (Systems and Relationships)

The ‘Structures’ level examines the broader systems and relationships shaping stakeholder engagement, including policies, incentives, regulations, and institutional support that affect technology adoption. Analysis also considered community network informal relationships and communication channels that influence user acceptance. Market conditions, such as funding availability and subsidies for renewable energy, further impact decisions. The Iceberg Model helped identify these structural elements, offering a comprehensive view of factors driving user behavior and engagement.

Mental Models (Deep Assumptions and Beliefs)

The ‘Mental Models’ level examines the beliefs, values, and assumptions that influence user perceptions and behaviors toward technology. These include cultural attitudes toward sustainability and energy transition, which shape how users assess the relevance of adopting new solutions. Concerns about reliability or effectiveness often arise from trust in existing systems, while personal and community values—spanning environmental responsibility to economic priorities—affect readiness to engage. Understanding these mindsets enables tailored engagement strategies, as shifting core assumptions can foster greater acceptance.

3.3. Design of the Questionnaires

Leveraging the Iceberg Model, Stakeholder Persona tools, and corresponding literature on energy transition challenges, the authors developed targeted questions to inform the development of the test case technology and identify strategies to enhance acceptance. Stakeholder persona questions were structured around parameters listed in

Table 4. Questionnaire formulation methodology.

Stakeholder Persona	Parameter
Demographics	Age, gender, employment, residency
Psychographic	Motivation to participate, values, attributes, critical concerns for the energy transition in Greece
Influence	Networks of influence
Iceberg Model
Events	Identification of challenges of the energy transition
	Social concerns for the energy transition
Patterns	Familiarization with solutions for energy upgrades at the building level
	Familiarization with solutions for energy upgrade at a city level
Structures	Concerns from a tenant’s perspective regarding the energy upgrade of a building
Mental Models	Awareness levels on engage community in the energy ecosystem
	Awareness level on deep tech (LCA/LCC)
	Energy Poverty
	Obstacles preventing the widespread adoption of technologies that promote accountability on sustainable investments
	Obstacles empowering citizens in understanding the benefits of energy investments

. The Iceberg Model questions explored the energy transition’s impact on communities in Western Macedonia and Insular Greece. Questions on energy upgrades in buildings and districts addressed practical user needs, while inquiries about trending technologies at the building and city levels contextualized current practices and expectations. Additional questions assessed citizens’ understanding of their role in the energy system and how tools like LCA and LCC can bridge knowledge gaps on environmental and economic benefits, supporting market adoption.

The questionnaire was administered to key stakeholders during two participatory workshops (see Appendix A)—one in Western Macedonia (Μainland Greece) and one focusing on the Greek islands—reflecting diverse geographical and social contexts. The Mentimeter platform was used to enhance engagement through live polls and open-ended questions, fostering active participation and anonymity to minimize bias. Instant data visualizations supported real-time interpretation and discussion among participants. Both multiple-choice and open-ended responses were collected; the latter were analyzed quantitatively using thematic analysis methodology [57].

3.4. Study Areas and Sample

Greece’s electricity system comprises the interconnected mainland network and the non-interconnected Aegean Archipelago islands. The Region of Western Macedonia (RWM), for a long time the country’s energy hub due to lignite mining, faces significant economic challenges as lignite plants are decommissioned. This is impacting 5000 permanent jobs and 15,000 non-standard jobs, contributing nearly one billion euros annually, accounting for about 42% of the region’s GDP [58,59]. In contrast, Insular Greece, with approximately 6000 islands (227 inhabited), relies on 250 thermal power units fueled by imported diesel and oil [60]. The islands represent roughly 20% of Greece’s total area, and their energy infrastructure still reflects a reliance on fossil fuels [61]. Both regions are navigating pivotal moments in shaping their energy transition futures, aligned with broader national goals for sustainability and economic resilience. This geographical division necessitates the use of distinct electrical systems [60].

Greece faces complex challenges in achieving climate resilience and transitioning to sustainable energy, as climate adaptation is closely tied to transforming its energy sector. The national strategy aims to phase out lignite-fired power by 2028, while ensuring a just transition for mining regions and addressing energy poverty [62]. Although aligned with EU decarbonization goals, both regions face significant socioeconomic hurdles. The government is investing in low-carbon energy, grid modernization, and economic diversification, but skepticism remains over impacts such as job losses, rising energy costs, limited grid connectivity, financial strain on vulnerable groups, high technology upgrade costs, and disruption to fossil fuel-dependent local economies [63].

The study sample included stakeholders relevant to the energy transition. An open invitation was issued to the public, complemented by targeted invitations to locally identified stakeholders. In the mainland workshop (Western Macedonia), 52 participants attended, including end-users of retrofitting measures (19%), investors (8%), researchers (24%), decision-makers (6%), and engineers (43%). In the Insular Greece workshop, 26 participants attended including engineers (27%), researchers (38%), decision-makers (15%), and end-users (12%). In the Kozani workshop, females comprised 32.7% of the participants, and males accounted for 67.3%, based on a total of 52 attendees while, in the Athens workshop, women comprised 42.3% of the participants, while men accounted for 57.7% in a total of 26 attendees. All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. In the Kozani workshop, consent was obtained through a written form integrated into the distributed questionnaire. In the Athens (Insular Greece) workshop, participants were informed verbally at the beginning of the session, due to the paperless format adopted to promote environmental sustainability. In both cases, participants were made aware of the study’s objectives, their voluntary participation, and data confidentiality provisions.

To reduce self-selection and non-response bias, the authors embedded interactive segments throughout the sessions and used Mentimeter not as a stand-alone tool but as part of an integrated facilitation approach. Live presentations were immediately followed by real-time polls, encouraging near-universal participation. The response rate in the Athens-based (Insular Greece) workshop reached 62%, and in Kozani (Western Macedonia), it exceeded 90%. These participation levels are considered satisfactory for interactive stakeholder studies and increase the representativeness of the data collected. Participant numbers differed between locations (52 in WM; 26 in Insular Greece), reflecting regional differences in population, stakeholder availability, and institutional engagement capacity. However, the workshop methodology prioritized problem discovery and saturation, not proportional representation. Group sizes (3–20) fell within accepted norms for participatory design and qualitative data generation [64].

4. Results

The Stakeholder Persona tool identified distinct user profiles, highlighting motivations, challenges, and engagement patterns in the transition process. The Iceberg Model uncovered hidden factors, such as cultural beliefs and economic barriers, shaping stakeholder behaviors. Insights from both workshops informed us of the test technology’s development, ensuring alignment with societal needs and local dynamics. To analyze open-ended responses statistically, the authors followed four key steps: (1) cleaned and organized responses into meaningful themes, (2) created a flexible coding system that included new themes emerging from the data, (3) manually coded responses while checking for consistency between coders (Krippendorff’s α ≥ 0.70) [65], and (4) converted these codes into numerical counts for statistical analysis [66]. This approach ensured systematic transformation of qualitative data into analyzable quantitative metrics while maintaining methodological rigor.

4.1. Stakeholder Persona Results

Findings from the mainland workshop highlighted key technical and social aspects of the energy transition. Engineers were well-represented, reflecting focus on technical challenges in Western Macedonia’s lignite phase-out and district heating replacement. Participants stressed the need to gain more insight into the energy transition discussions (38%) and voiced concerns about equity (12%) during the transition (Figure 3). Unemployment and job security were major concerns (72%), underscoring the need for a transition that supports vulnerable groups. While innovation was acknowledged, only 10% cited it, suggesting that job loss fears may overshadow the perceived new employment opportunities (Figure 4).

The Insular Greece workshop had a different participant mix, with strong representation from researchers and decision-makers. Participants prioritized access to advanced tools for energy transition planning (17%) and emphasized social (14%) and environmental (10%) challenges. Environmental sustainability (35%) was the top concern, reflecting the islands’ dependence on tourism and ecological preservation. Other key issues included energy costs (29%), availability (12%), and security (10%), highlighting the need for reliable energy and infrastructure reforms. Both workshops demonstrated how local contexts shape stakeholder perspectives.

4.2. Iceberg Model Results on Perceived Events as Immediate Challenges and Social Concerns of the Energy Transition

The Insular Greece workshop highlighted key challenges in the energy transition (Figure 5). Economic viability of measures implemented was the top concern (26%), emphasizing financial feasibility [67]. Public acceptance (25%) ranked next, reflecting fears that large-scale energy infrastructure could harm the islands’ natural beauty and tourism-driven economies [68]. Energy security (20%) and reliability (16%) also emerged as priorities, underscoring the need for resilient infrastructure and technological innovation. Energy supply was a lower concern (13%), suggesting confidence in current resources or potential underestimation of future demand and supply challenges. While dominant concerns such as economic viability (Figure 5) and employment security (Figure 4a) shaped the broader stakeholder narratives, several participants expressed contrasting views that challenge these prevailing patterns. In Insular Greece, for instance, although cost was a major factor, a noteworthy proportion (25%) prioritized public acceptance as a primary concern, emphasizing risks to landscape preservation and tourism-dependent economies (Figure 5).

In contrast, the Mainland Greece workshop revealed different priorities. While participants recognized the economic aspects of the energy transition, their primary concern was unemployment—a key social impact—highlighting social stability as the main challenge (Figure 4 and Figure 5). This emphasizes the need to create resilient job opportunities and support local economic sustainability during the shift to new energy systems.

In the Insular Greece workshop, in terms of societal challenges, 33% of respondents cited low awareness of the energy transition, with 28% emphasizing public acceptance as critical for energy project success. Energy dependence, resilience, and sustainability each accounted for 17%, while 5% noted financial impacts on the local economy. These findings highlight the need for active societal and political engagement to bolster economic resilience and public acceptance of energy-related projects (Figure 6). Similarly, the mainland workshop identified unemployment as the top concern (61%), followed by migration and brain drain (28%) and energy poverty (11%).

4.3. Iceberg Model Results for Observed Patterns in Energy Upgrades

In the mainland workshop, the most widely recognized building-level energy upgrades were passive measures such as insulation and energy-efficient design (34%), reflecting local climate needs, particularly harsh winters (Figure 7). Photovoltaic (PV) roof installations followed at 26%, with heating system upgrades at 21%. In Insular Greece, stakeholders primarily identified RES—especially PV systems—as the most familiar solution (41%), followed by building envelope improvements (21%), heat pumps (14%), and energy storage (7%).

At the district level, key energy upgrade solutions identified in the mainland included public building energy upgrades (30%), street lighting (17%), mobility interventions (15%), and energy conservation measures (11%). Other noted initiatives were district heating upgrades (9%), green space development (7%), renewable energy investments (7%), and recycling (4%) (Figure 8). These results highlight the need for greater education and awareness to fully leverage both active and passive energy strategies in regional planning.

The Insular Greece workshop reflected the region’s distinct needs, with sustainable mobility emerging as the top priority (40%), highlighting challenges in inter-island transport. Renewable energy integration, especially PVs, was noted by 24%, while street lighting and public building upgrades each accounted for 12%. Green space initiatives (8%) and other measures (4%) were also mentioned. These findings underscore the need to raise awareness among residents and stakeholders to advance effective energy upgrade solutions and sustainable energy practices.

4.4. Iceberg Model Results for Underlying Structures Influencing the Patterns Observed

The Mainland Greece workshop reveals important insights into the underlying structures influencing stakeholder preferences for energy upgrades. Financial concerns, such as cost-related issues, were the dominant factor influencing stakeholder preferences towards energy upgrades, cited by 55% of participants (Figure 9). Energy efficiency, emphasized by 24% of participants, and the role of financial incentives, which were noted by 21% of respondents, were also prevalent factors. Similarly, in Insular Greece, 33% of participants highlighted cost as a major influence on decisions about energy upgrades, followed by concerns about energy efficiency outcomes (25%), the payback period of interventions (23%), increased comfort (11%), and improvements in property value (8%). Collectively, these findings highlight the need for comprehensive cost–benefit analyses to effectively demonstrate both the financial feasibility and the potential environmental benefits associated with energy upgrades.

4.5. Iceberg Model Results on Mental Models That Indicate Assumptions or Beliefs That People Hold That Can Potentially Facilitate the Energy Transition

The mental models layer emphasizes the need to address core beliefs to enable sustainable change. The critical examination and reshaping of the mental models that underpin community attitudes towards the energy transition can foster a more informed and engaged population, facilitating the successful implementation of renewable energy initiatives and sustainability practices.

Workshop findings from mainland and Insular Greece revealed widespread perceptions of low awareness regarding energy transition (Figure 10). Specifically, 53% of mainland and 56% of island participants rated their awareness as low, with 69% believing island communities lack sufficient knowledge to engage effectively in the energy transition. This reflects a sense of disengagement, with residents viewing expertise as limited to specialists. To counter this, targeted public awareness campaigns are urgently needed to empower communities by demystifying energy transition concepts and providing accessible tools for active participation.

Findings from the mainland workshop reveal participants’ mental models regarding energy transition challenges. A prominent belief, cited by 40% of respondents, is that financing schemes and incentives are crucial drivers for enabling energy transition initiatives and fighting energy poverty (Figure 11). This reflects a recognition that financial mechanisms are perceived as essential for offsetting the initial costs associated with adopting new technologies, thereby encouraging both individuals and organizations to invest in renewable energy solutions and energy-efficient upgrades. Additionally, 20% of participants emphasized the importance of building-level energy efficiency improvements, recognizing their role in reducing energy consumption, costs, and footprints, underscoring a clear link between infrastructure upgrades and sustainability.

The establishment of ECs was highlighted by 20% of respondents as a key element of the energy transition, reflecting strong belief in collective action and local engagement to foster shared investment, savings, and resilience. Additionally, 10% emphasized the importance of expanding RES, recognizing their role in reducing fossil fuel dependence and mitigating climate change. Another 10% stressed the need for greater public awareness, underscoring the view that informed community participation is critical for a successful transition. Strengthening awareness of renewable energy and efficiency benefits can help build a proactive, engaged public to support transition efforts (Figure 11).

Workshop findings show a disparity in awareness of LCA and LCC methodologies in both Insular and Mainland Greece. In Insular Greece, 72% of respondents indicated that they are aware of these methodologies, while in mainland Greece 52% of participants were familiar, with 48% stating that they were unaware (Figure 12). This disparity reflects differing assumptions, beliefs, and values related to environmental and economic assessments of energy investments. In the mainland, lower awareness may stem from perceptions that LCA and LCC methods are too complex, irrelevant or inaccessible to local stakeholders. Such perceptions may create a cycle of disengagement from energy transition initiatives, ultimately hindering the adoption of essential analytical tools that could empower stakeholders to evaluate the environmental and economic implications of energy projects. Enhancing understanding of these tools is critical to empower stakeholders, foster informed decision making, and support sustainable energy practices, by addressing the underlying mental models that shape stakeholder perceptions. Efforts to bridge this knowledge gap are crucial for fostering a more informed and proactive community capable of contributing to energy transition initiatives effectively.

In Western Macedonia, despite a strong emphasis on financial incentives (Figure 11), some participants highlighted the importance of community engagement through Energy Communities (20%) and increased public awareness (10%) as essential enablers of a fair energy transition. These perspectives, though less common, represent critical disconfirming evidence that broadens our understanding of the sociotechnical dynamics at play and underscore the heterogeneity of stakeholder values and priorities.

Both workshops identified ‘insufficient information’ as a major barrier to understanding the benefits of energy upgrade investments (Figure 13), cited by 51% of participants in Insular Greece and 50% in the mainland, indicating a belief that informed decisions require access to clear, reliable data. Limited awareness of innovative technologies reflects assumptions that such solutions are complex or inaccessible, fostering disengagement and skepticism among stakeholders. Additionally, 8% of Insular Greece respondents noted distrust, while 14% in the mainland highlighted a lack of transparency, indicating belief systems shaped by past negative experiences or perceived gaps in accountability.

Economic constraints and heavy taxation, noted by 22% of participants in Insular Greece and echoed in the mainland, reflect perceptions that the costs of new energy technologies are prohibitively high or offer limited returns, reinforcing a preference for short-term financial stability over long-term sustainability. While Greece provides incentives for renewables, its tax regime is less favorable compared to other EU countries with stronger support for clean energy [69,70]. Additional barriers include a lack of cooperation (8%), limited presence of ECs (3%), and bureaucratic hurdles (5%), all of which highlight fragmented interests, weak grassroots engagement, and regulatory inefficiencies, revealing the need for more streamlined, supportive policies.

To address these challenges, it is crucial to adopt methodologies that clarify the environmental and economic benefits of new technologies, making complex concepts accessible and relatable. Building trust through transparency is equally vital; providing stakeholders with clear data on technological performance, costs, and savings over the life cycle can reshape perceptions. When applying LCA and LCC methodologies to stakeholders’ mental models (as illustrated in the Iceberg Model), underlying beliefs and values can be transformed. Tackling barriers like insufficient information and mistrust will foster a well-informed community, strengthening support for sustainable practices and accelerating the adoption of clean energy solutions.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of Results

This study aimed to explore the social dimensions of Greece’s energy transition in the contrasting contexts of Western Macedonia and Insular Greece and to use these insights to inform the advancement of the test case technology. The results reveal substantial regional variations in community concerns and priorities, reflecting underlying economic models. In Insular Greece, with its tourism-driven economy, participants prioritized energy security, environmental sustainability, and public acceptance of renewable energy solutions. Conversely, Western Macedonia, concerned by the de-industrialization of the lignite sector, focused on job security and economic diversification. These findings challenge the viability of a “one-size-fits-all” energy strategy, emphasizing instead the need for context-sensitive tools that align with regional socio-economic realities. The significant contrasts between Western Macedonia, where job security and economic stability dominate concerns, and Insular Greece, which prioritizes long-term sustainability, demonstrate that environmental awareness alone does not guarantee acceptance when economic trade-offs exist. This aligns with broader energy transition research [71], where economic feasibility often determines adoption, even within socially innovative frameworks. For instance, Western Macedonia’s resistance mirrors cost-sensitive barriers seen in rural electrification studies, while Insular Greece’s sustainability focus reflects a willingness to invest in resilience despite higher upfront costs. To bridge these disparities, tailored communication, adaptive technologies, and region-specific policy incentives are essential to ensure that energy transitions remain both socially inclusive and economically viable.

The Stakeholder Persona tool provided valuable insights into community interests and concerns that can guide the refinement of the test case technology. In Western Macedonia, where equity and job security are paramount, the test case technology should emphasize features that showcase job creation and economic benefits resulting from energy investments. Integrating customized investment performance indicators linked to employment outcomes can address local concerns and enhance community buy-in for future energy initiatives. In Insular Greece, where environmental sustainability, public trust, and a stable energy supply dominate, the technology should highlight environmental performance, offering robust evaluations to build trust in RES. Overall, the tool’s insights affirm the need for the test case technology to adapt to diverse local needs, aligning its features with community expectations to support sustainable energy policies and practices.

The regional contradictions highlight how socio-economic and cultural factors shape stakeholder priorities. In Insular Greece, for example, the higher awareness of LCA/LCC methodologies may stem from heightened environmental concerns—particularly the need to preserve fragile ecosystems and tourism-dependent economies. This contrasts with Western Macedonia, where economic concerns, especially job security (persona level) during the lignite phase-out (iceberg’s structural layer), appear to outweigh environmental considerations. Such findings underscore how awareness and priorities are shaped not only by access to knowledge but also by the prevailing socio-economic realities and dependencies in each region.

The Iceberg Model deepened understanding of the opportunities and challenges related to implementing test case technology across four analytical layers: Events, Patterns/Trends, Underlying Structures, and Mental Models. At the Events level, findings underscore the importance of addressing environmental and economic issues, with market volatility fueling uncertainty. Incorporating dynamic LCC methods, reflecting real-time energy pricing, can deliver precise assessments of environmental impacts and economic viability, enabling communities to plan strategically and align with evolving carbon markets.

The Patterns/Trends layer revealed regional differences in energy priorities: mainland Greece emphasizes passive energy systems, while Insular Greece prioritizes renewable integration and sustainable mobility. These insights suggest that technology should support modular optimization and phased energy upgrades to adapt effectively across regions. At the Underlying Structures layer, stakeholder concerns about financial viability and energy efficiency emerged as central. Technology must clearly communicate the economic benefits of energy upgrades, linking energy efficiency to cost savings, comfort improvements, and increased property value to build trust and encourage informed investment decisions.

Finally, the Mental Models layer highlights the critical role of awareness and education. Limited familiarity with methodologies such as LCA and LCC signals the need for initiatives that demystify these concepts. Providing accessible data, clear communication, and practical examples, the test case technology can empower communities, foster active participation and strengthen trust in innovative energy solutions.

Based on these empirical insights, the following policy considerations are proposed.

In Western Macedonia, policy should emphasize local job creation via green investments. This aligns with the strong emphasis on employment in the workshop findings. Introducing LCA tools that include employment-related indicators could enhance adoption. In Insular Greece, support should focus on enhancing public trust and awareness, leveraging the region’s higher baseline knowledge of LCA/LCC. Feasibility is high due to existing technical capacity among stakeholders. Nationally, cross-regional education programs and incentives for EC participation can address knowledge asymmetries and economic barriers identified under the “mental models” layer. While detailed cost analysis was beyond the scope of this study, the identification of financial concerns (e.g., affordability, ROI expectations) by more than 50% of respondents in both contexts reinforces the urgency of designing support schemes with transparent cost-benefit communication.

The findings resonate with broader European experiences in community-led energy initiatives. Notably, German energy cooperatives exemplify how bottom-up social innovations can scale renewable energy adoption through democratic governance and strong community investment mechanisms. These models have been shown to foster trust, transparency, and local economic development, supporting more inclusive transitions [72].

The empirical differences observed between Western Macedonia and Insular Greece also reflect patterns recognized in socio-technical transition theory. Within the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), these variations illustrate the friction between niche-level innovations (e.g., LCA tools, participatory engagement) and entrenched regime structures (e.g., institutional inertia, fossil fuel lock-ins) [73]. Moreover, using the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework, the identified barriers—such as limited knowledge diffusion and market formation—indicate underperforming system functions in moderate innovation regions. Applying SI tools can help activate these functions by fostering user-centric knowledge creation, societal embedding, and collective legitimacy for emerging clean technologies. While the study does not directly propose modifications to existing transition theories, it advances their operationalization by embedding SI tools within real-world participatory contexts. The Iceberg Model resonates with the MLP by linking events (niche innovations) to deeper structural and cultural layers (regime and landscape levels). Likewise, the Stakeholder Persona tool aligns with TIS theory, especially in capturing actor-specific legitimacy and user acceptance. Translating these frameworks into actionable insights for innovation design and stakeholder engagement, our study contributes to the contextual enrichment of transition theory in moderate-innovation regions such as Greece.

In conclusion, integrating insights from all Iceberg Model layers offers a comprehensive framework for supporting Greece’s energy transition. Addressing the economic, social, and educational barriers identified, the test case technology can enhance stakeholder engagement, drive adoption of renewable energy solutions, and contribute to a more sustainable, resilient energy landscape tailored to diverse community needs.

5.2. Limitations

This study acknowledges limitations that inform future research directions. Participation was voluntary and might have attracted individuals already supportive of clean energy transitions. This could have resulted in an overrepresentation of supportive viewpoints, limiting insights into community skepticism or resistance. Moreover, the sample of participants primarily consisted of specific stakeholder groups, such as engineers, researchers, decision-makers, and end-users potentially underrepresenting marginalized communities or populations with limited access to technical or policy information -segments critical for inclusive energy transition strategies. Regional socio-economic differences and energy infrastructure disparities could further affect perceptions, priorities and barriers, complicating efforts to generalize results across different areas. Lastly, the study focused on participatory engagement and perception analysis, without direct interaction with or longitudinal assessment of the innovative technology. As such, behavior change, and technology adoption outcomes remain unmeasured. Future research should seek to address these limitations by (i) expanding sample sizes and stakeholder diversity, (ii) engaging hard-to-reach skeptical or vulnerable groups, and (iii) incorporating longitudinal monitoring of technology use and adoption patterns.

6. Conclusions

This study explored the social and economic dimensions of Greece’s energy transition, focusing on the contrasting cases of Western Macedonia and Insular Greece. By applying SI tools—namely, the Stakeholder Persona and Iceberg Model—valuable insights were generated to inform the advancement of innovative technologies supporting the shift to renewable energy.

The effectiveness of each SI tool proved context specific. The Iceberg Model, selected for its capacity to reveal social dynamics between distinct communities, demonstrated strong replicability potential, adding significant value to the findings. The study’s methodologies and results can serve as a framework for replication in other regions, enabling policymakers and researchers to tailor strategies to local conditions and identify region-specific challenges and opportunities.

The research confirms that the energy transition is not solely a technical endeavor but a socio-technical transformation requiring participatory approaches. Scaling and refining SI tools can enable stakeholders to co-create solutions that align environmental objectives with economic equity and cultural values. Future efforts should focus on deepening collaboration between the private sector and local communities (e.g., through tailored business models and co-ownership schemes), strengthening education and capacity-building (e.g., integrating SI tools into university curricula), advancing social dynamics research (e.g., behavioral experiments and longitudinal studies), and enhancing technology development and market readiness (e.g., pilot testing and designing community-focused user interfaces).

Unlike previous studies that treat social innovation or public acceptance in abstract or homogeneous terms, this research provides differentiated insights rooted in localized economic models and cultural assumptions. Specifically, the use of the Iceberg Model enabled a layered understanding of stakeholder concerns—from observable events to unconscious mental models—offering a nuanced picture of how different communities frame energy transition. These findings go beyond generalized support/opposition narratives, showing instead how trust, cost awareness, and perceived agencies vary by region and influence technology uptake.

While this study focuses on Greece’s unique contexts, the patterns observed in Western Macedonia and Insular Greece mirror broader global transition challenges. Western Macedonia shares similarities with other lignite- or coal-dependent regions in Europe, such as Ruhr area and Saarland in Germany, where employment security and economic restructuring are central to the just transition agenda [74]. Similarly, Insular Greece faces structural constraints typical of remote island systems, including energy dependence on imported fossil fuels, infrastructure vulnerability, and high sensitivity to environmental change—issues also seen in the Balearic Islands, and other island economies [75]. These parallels suggest that the participatory methodology and social innovation tools applied here could be usefully adapted to other regions navigating comparable socio-technical transitions.

6.1. Step-by-Step Pathway for Implementing Policy

To support the practical application of the policy recommendations derived from this study, a structured pathway is proposed, grounded in the insights of the Stakeholder Persona and Iceberg Model analyses. This includes the following: (i) mapping community-specific needs and profiles, (ii) enhancing awareness and capacity through targeted outreach and education on LCA/LCC tools, (iii) piloting context-sensitive interventions, (iv) co-developing local policy blueprints with stakeholder input, (v) establishing feedback mechanisms for adaptive implementation, and (vi) disseminating outcomes to enable replication. This stepwise approach ensures that the recommendations are actionable, scalable, and responsive to diverse regional conditions.

6.2. Replication Framework for This Study

The proposed framework for replication in this study is built around three core components: (1) participatory diagnostics using the Stakeholder Persona and Iceberg Model; (2) alignment of test case technologies with localized priorities derived from the participatory process; and (3) adaptive redesign cycles guided by contextual feedback. This stepwise process enables structured replication in regions with similar socio-economic or environmental conditions, while allowing for regional tailoring of technological, institutional, or community-oriented interventions.

6.3. Future Research

Further research on cultural factors and behavioral economics will be critical to understanding stakeholder engagement and acceptance of renewable energy technologies. Investigating the social norms, values, and behaviors that shape perceptions of renewable solutions can provide actionable insights to foster widespread adoption. Integrating these elements into energy planning will ensure more inclusive and effective transitions, leaving no community behind in the transition toward sustainability.