Urban Policymakers’ Perspectives on the Equity Impacts and Risks of Local Energy and Mobility Decarbonisation Policies: A Case Study of Dutch Cities
1
Maastricht Sustainability Institute, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
2
Department of Environmental Sciences, Open Universiteit, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2025, 9(10), 405; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9100405
Submission received: 22 May 2025
/
Revised: 6 August 2025
/
Accepted: 17 September 2025
/
Published: 1 October 2025
Abstract
Decarbonisation of urban energy and transportation systems has become a priority for cities worldwide, with policies primarily aiming to promote rooftop solar electricity generation and a shift to private electric vehicles (EVs). However, these policies may also increase inequalities in access to affordable, low-carbon mobility and the associated benefits. While academic literature shows increasing awareness of these equity impacts and risks, the extent to which this applies to policy practice remains unclear. We therefore conducted a case study of seven Dutch cities, analysing local policy documents and conducting interviews with policymakers. The study provided insight into the current policy landscape and revealed a general sensitivity among interviewed policymakers to possible equity impacts of the current decarbonisation policies. Only a few measures to address these impacts are currently in place, but policymakers have proposed a range of novel and more inclusive measures, which can be tested for their impacts and scaling potential in real-life experiments. Another priority for future research is exploring the potential of shared electric mobility to provide equitable access to low-carbon transportation.
1. Introduction
As major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, urban energy and transportation systems have made decarbonisation a priority for many cities worldwide, particularly since the Paris Agreement in 2015 [1,2]. Urban decarbonisation strategies focus on the electrification of energy use in the built environment (e.g., heating) and transportation, combined with electricity production from renewable energy sources [3,4]. For households, more specifically, policies primarily aim to promote electricity production from rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems and a shift to private electric cars [5,6]. The latter is also supported by the rollout of charging infrastructure and the introduction of low- and zero-emission zones within cities [6]. Although most financial resources are directed towards the promotion of self-produced electricity and electric driving, decarbonisation policies also support public, shared, and active modes of transportation, especially at the local level [3,7]. Finally, digitalisation of energy and transportation systems through smart grid and smart mobility technologies is promoted, enabling large-scale integration of decentralised electricity sources and the convenient use of multiple (sustainable) modes of transportation [5,8,9].
The shift towards distributed production of electricity from PV and electric mobility is leading to greater integration of urban energy and transportation systems [10,11]. This integration is currently exemplified by electric driving combined with the potential for home charging of private vehicles with self-produced electricity [12]. However, more far-reaching forms of integration are underway. To accommodate the variability in weather-dependent renewable energy production, the need for electrical energy storage in batteries is expected to increase strongly [5,13]. This expected increase, combined with the rapid growth in battery EVs, has led to the conceptualisation of bidirectional, integrated vehicle-to-grid (V2G) systems, where these vehicles serve as mobile and distributed forms of short-term storage for renewable-based electrical energy [14,15]. V2G technology will likely find significant application in future smart grids and smart charging systems, facilitating the further integration of distributed renewable energy production [5,16].
The ongoing and future integration of urban energy and transportation systems can have major positive impacts in terms of reduced GHG emissions and improved urban air quality, but in academic literature, there is growing attention to negative impacts and risks as well. In a recent systematic literature review, Payakkamas et al. [17] compiled a list of the (potential) negative effects of this transition on various aspects of sustainability and equity. The negative impacts on urban sustainability mostly revolve around the perpetuation of current problems associated with car-based mobility, such as congestion, land use, and safety issues [18,19,20]. Equity impacts and risks concern new or growing inequalities in access to affordable and sustainable mobility and the associated benefits [18,20,21,22,23]. Table 1 presents an overview of relevant urban decarbonisation policies and the associated equity impacts and risks, based on Payakkamas et al. [17]. Policies to promote V2G implementation are not included in this overview, as the technology is still in the experimental stage, but as indicated by Sovacool et al. [24], the anticipated large-scale implementation of V2G will most likely increase inequalities even further.
From Table 1, an underlying pattern emerges of both social and spatial factors that determine the unequal distribution of access and benefits, as well as the reinforcing interactions between these factors and their effects [17]. Income level is an important social factor influencing access to electric mobility, given the high prices of EVs. The same applies to access to self-produced electricity with rooftop PV. In both cases, access is accompanied by a range of benefits, such as subsidies and exemptions, that are usually intended as incentives. Access and benefits are also determined by spatial factors, most importantly, the availability of well-exposed rooftop space to install PV panels and space for residential off-street parking to allow home charging of EVs. As low incomes often coincide with living in neighbourhoods with apartment blocks without private rooftop or parking space (and vice versa for high incomes), the distribution of access and associated benefits is socio-spatially highly unequal. This inequality is further enhanced by a range of penalties imposed on those who do not own an EV or PV panels [17].
Existing or future policies to mitigate these equity impacts and risks have received less attention in the academic literature than policies addressing sustainability impacts [17]. Nevertheless, in recent years, a range of policy strategies and measures has been proposed, ranging from abstract to concrete and from the national to the local level [25]. Examples include financial measures such as reduced taxes and subsidies [26], which could be made income-dependent [27,28], made more accessible [29], or even removed when these measures favour only individuals with higher incomes [25]. Pucci [20] proposed differentiating policies not only according to socio-economic but also spatial criteria, by adopting different combinations of measures for low-, medium-, and high-density areas. Tilly et al. [25] recommended governmental intervention to mitigate the socio-spatially unequal distribution of charging infrastructure and identified a role for governments in promoting car-sharing approaches and increasing the attractiveness of public and active transportation.
The academic literature has shown an increasing awareness of the equity impacts and risks of current urban decarbonisation policies and has even started to explore possible mitigation strategies. However, the current situation ‘on the ground’ and the extent to which a gap exists between the recent literature and actual policy practice remain unclear. Are the decarbonisation policies listed in Table 1 dominant across cities, with similar concrete policy measures at the local level? Are urban policymakers aware of the equity impacts and risks of these policies? How do they view the responsibility of local governments in this regard? Are there already policy measures in place to mitigate these equity impacts and risks? And how do their ideas about possible policy improvements compare with mitigation strategies proposed in the academic literature?
This study aimed to answer these questions to gain a better understanding of the current situation at the urban level and to identify how to support the implementation of policy measures that promote equitable access to affordable and sustainable mobility and the associated benefits. To achieve this overall aim, we conducted a case study of seven Dutch cities with the following specific objectives: (1) to map relevant local decarbonisation policy measures, (2) to assess the awareness and recognition among urban policymakers of the equity impacts of these measures and the socio-spatial factors involved, and (3) to investigate their perspectives on the role of the municipality in addressing these equity impacts, the extent to which current policies already address them, and possible policy improvements for more effective mitigation. To our knowledge, this study represents the first investigation of urban policymakers’ perspectives on the equity risks of local decarbonisation policies, providing novel insights into how the implementation of risk-mitigation measures might be supported.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research Approach
To achieve the aims and specific objectives of the study, we analysed local policy documents and interviewed policymakers from seven cities in the Netherlands. We opted for semi-structured interviews, as these are better suited to provide a nuanced and in-depth understanding of people’s perspectives [30]. Further considerations were that the equity impacts and risks of decarbonisation policies constitute a relatively new field with potentially little common understanding of terms (and are therefore not suitable for surveys that do not allow for interactive clarification), and that interactive (group) interviews are more suitable than surveys for generating and discussing ideas about possible novel policy measures to mitigate equity impacts and risks. As a framework guiding the document analysis and the interviews, we used the list of urban decarbonisation policies and associated equity impacts and risks presented in Table 1. More details about the document analysis and interviews are presented in Section 2.2.
Our sample included the three largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague), with populations between 550,000 and 950,000, and four medium-sized cities (Leiden, Maastricht, Delft, and Heerlen), with populations between 85,000 and 130,000 inhabitants [31]. This sample size allowed for an in-depth qualitative study of urban policymakers’ perspectives on the equity impacts and risks of current urban decarbonisation policies and policy options to address these impacts and risks. The geographical focus was motivated by the stage and pace in the Netherlands of the two transformative shifts central to this study, i.e., towards distributed renewable energy production through rooftop PV on private homes and the shift towards private ownership of EVs. As of January 2024, PV panels were installed on more than 30% of all homes in the Netherlands [32]. Also, while electric driving in the Netherlands is still dominated by leased cars (more than 25% of all leased cars are electric), private ownership of EVs is rapidly increasing, and between 2019 and 2023 more electric than fossil-fuelled vehicles were bought [33]. Whereas many sustainability transition studies focus on large cities, which are considered frontrunners, we also included medium-sized cities in our sample because in the Netherlands, the majority of the urban population lives in cities with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants [34]. The four medium-sized cities were selected for reasons of access to interviewees (partner cities in other projects) and convenience (proximity).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Analysis of Policy Documents
The current decarbonisation policy landscape in the seven cities was mapped to validate the inventory based on a review of the international literature (Table 1) and to provide additional local detail on concrete policy measures and plans, including possible variation between the cities. Publicly available policy documents were retrieved from the municipal websites of the seven cities after a comprehensive search for all documents pertaining to sustainability and climate more broadly, and energy and mobility more specifically. This retrieval resulted in more than 50 policy documents overall, including web pages (see Appendix A for a detailed overview). Using the guiding framework of Table 1, the documents were systematically analysed to identify, for each city, relevant policies, measures, regulations, and plans.
2.2.2. Interviews with Urban Policymakers
Semi-structured interviews were held with 19 policymakers from seven Dutch cities (Table 2). The participants were recruited through purposive sampling combined with snowballing. Through an Internet search, policymakers in the fields of energy and/or mobility were identified for each city and approached by email. From these initial contacts, alternative or additional interviewees were recruited per city, aiming for a minimum of two interviewees per city and representation of expertise in both energy and mobility decarbonisation policies. This recruitment resulted in four group interviews (Rotterdam, The Hague, Maastricht, and Heerlen) and five individual interviews (Amsterdam, Leiden, and Delft), conducted mainly in person but occasionally online when needed. Group interviews were preferred, as interaction between participants may yield broader viewpoints or additional insights, but when no suitable date could be found, individual interviews were conducted instead. When issues were not articulated clearly during the interviews, follow-up questions were asked by email. The interviews lasted between 40–60 min and were conducted in Dutch. All interviewees gave their consent for the interviews to be recorded and used for research and for (anonymised) publication.
The structure of the interviews was based on the research questions (see the Supplementary Materials for the interview guide). First, the participants were asked in general about any equity impacts or risks of current energy and mobility decarbonisation policies they were aware of. Next, they were asked specifically about the equity impacts and risks listed in Table 1, whether they recognised these as occurring or likely to occur in their city, including various socio-spatial risk factors, and whether they felt the municipality should take an active role in addressing them. Based on this discussion, the participants were asked whether they perceived current policies as already addressing these equity impacts and risks. Finally, they were asked how local policy could be improved in this respect. The interview audio recordings were transcribed using Good Tape (https://goodtape.io/, accessed on 20 January 2025), and checked for errors prior to analysis. The transcripts were analysed using deductive codes, derived from the research questions and the guiding framework (Table 1). In Section 3, the interview sources are specified by referring to the cities, listed in order of population size (Table 2, first column).
3. Results
3.1. Local Decarbonisation Measures
Across the seven cities, 24 different local decarbonisation policy measures were identified (Table 3). The number of measures identified per city correlated with city size (17 for Amsterdam versus 4 for Heerlen) and probably also with the city’s character (14 for Delft, dominated by its large technical university, versus 4 for Heerlen, without a major university). Most of the identified policy measures concern mobility, which is typically the responsibility of local governments, whereas energy policy is largely a regional or national responsibility, with local governments in a supporting or implementation role. This also explains why there is less diversity between cities in energy policy than in mobility policy measures. The most common policy measures (found in five or more cities) are promotion of rooftop PV, support for energy cooperatives, support for mass retrofitting of homes, expansion of charging infrastructure, expansion of intermodal exchange hubs, and (re)design of public space for non-car users. Whereas the focus of the policy measures is mainly on the promotion of rooftop PV and private EVs, including supporting infrastructure and regulation, there is also attention to alternative low-carbon options, such as public, shared, and multi-modal mobility. Only a few policy measures are aimed at equity risks, e.g., support measures for people with limited digital skills and support for affordable shared mobility initiatives.
3.1.1. Promotion of Self-Produced Electricity
Promotion of rooftop PV is part of the energy policy in all studied cities and includes (support to obtain) subsidies for household-level installation. The national net-metering policy allows people to feed excess self-produced electricity back into the grid and pay their energy provider only for their annual net energy use [35]. Large-scale feeding back of self-produced electricity requires capacity expansion of the local power grids, which is actively supported by a few larger cities (Amsterdam and The Hague). Energy cooperatives, which can provide access to solar energy without the need for private roof space, are widely supported, although in The Hague and Leiden, no explicit mentions were found. In the context of national goals for the ‘heat transition’, which involves replacing natural gas with renewable sources, many local governments offer financial support for mass retrofitting of homes, including installation of rooftop PV (Amsterdam, The Hague, and Leiden), and/or removing legal and regulatory obstacles to energy renovation (Amsterdam, Leiden, and Delft).
3.1.2. Promotion of Private EVs
Purchase of private EVs is promoted primarily by national policies, mainly through subsidies and tax reductions [36]. At the local level, policies focus on promoting EV use, e.g., by supporting the development of a public charging station network. Only one local measure was identified that directly targets the purchase of a private EV by subsidising people to trade in their polluting vehicles for electric ones (Amsterdam, The Hague, and Leiden).
3.1.3. Low/Zero-Emission Zoning
Zoning regulation for passenger vehicles takes two forms: limiting access and parking for polluting vehicles through restrictions such as increased parking fees, reduced parking space, or fewer parking permits (Amsterdam, Leiden, and Delft), and prioritising low-/zero-emission vehicles through, e.g., reduced parking fees, especially in traffic-heavy areas like the city centre (Amsterdam and Delft).
3.1.4. Roll-Out of Charging Infrastructure
Many cities have policies to build more EV charging stations across their territories to keep up with the growing demand for electric driving (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Leiden, Maastricht, and Heerlen). To determine the locations of new stations, several cities allow residents to request installations in their vicinity (Rotterdam, Maastricht, and Delft). One city opened a channel for reporting unnecessarily long charging times (Maastricht) to ensure accessibility for all electric drivers. Three cities plan to build solar-powered parking-and-charging facilities, which use space more efficiently and create synergies between the energy and mobility transitions (Rotterdam, The Hague, and Leiden).
3.1.5. Digitalisation and Smartification Policies
Local digitalisation and smartification policies for the mobility transition include plans to introduce digital platforms (e.g., mobile applications) and infrastructure for MaaS (in The Hague and Delft) and to offer automated (public) transportation as a last-mile solution (in Rotterdam and The Hague). Support for the digitally challenged was mentioned in a few policy documents (from The Hague and Leiden), but no detailed plans were found.
3.1.6. Promotion of Other Forms of Low-Carbon Urban Mobility
All cities (except Heerlen) have policies to promote low-carbon forms of mobility other than private EVs. In large cities, plans are implemented to improve the affordability and coverage of existing public transportation (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague). Additionally, plans to improve the affordability of shared mobility (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Delft) and to enhance the user experience of shared mobility through the expansion of park-and-ride, park-and-bike, and bike-and-walk facilities in strategic locations were mentioned (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Maastricht, and Delft). One city has an active policy to install neighbourhood batteries next to mobility hubs (Leiden). Spatial measures include (re)designing public space with attention to non-car users (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Leiden, Maastricht, and Delft) and making urban cycling more attractive with more cycling lanes, cycling networks, and parking facilities (Amsterdam, The Hague, Maastricht, and Delft).
3.2. Awareness of Equity Impacts of Decarbonisation Policies
Awareness of equity impacts and risks here means that interviewees mentioned these impacts or risks themselves without being asked specifically. Table 4 presents the results arranged per city. Broadly, two patterns can be observed. First, awareness seems to be higher in the three large cities than in the four medium-sized cities. Second, awareness of the equity impacts is highest for the promotion of self-produced electricity and EVs and lowest for low/zero-emission zoning. Various factors may play a role. In the large cities, the energy and mobility transitions are at a more advanced stage, and therefore, there is likely to be more local awareness of possible equity impacts. These cities also employ more specialised staff who may recognise less commonly known types of equity impacts. The participant from Amsterdam, for instance, specialised in potential inequalities resulting from the energy and mobility transitions. Finally, self-produced electricity and private EVs are promoted by longstanding national subsidy schemes, which may explain the widespread awareness of the equity impacts and risks of these policies. By contrast, the implementation of low/zero-emission zones is (still) a local responsibility, with large differences between cities in the pace of implementation.
With respect to the equity impacts of local decarbonisation policies, the participants emphasised a variety of aspects. The participant from Amsterdam observed an excessive focus on the technical dimension of policy measures and a lack of attention to differences between social groups. In Rotterdam, the participants noted the incredible pace of the energy and mobility transitions, which at the same time have far-reaching and potentially unintended negative and unequal social effects. The participants from The Hague stressed a growing need for cooperation between different domains and departments as the transitions increasingly overlap. In Leiden, the participants emphasised socio-cultural factors, including lack of trust in others and in institutions, as barriers to the use of, e.g., shared mobility or subsidies for PV panels. In contrast to the other cities, the participants from Heerlen indicated that local policy focuses more on addressing poverty issues and safeguarding citizens’ ability to pay their electricity bills and afford transportation, rather than on decarbonisation policies such as EV promotion.
3.3. Recognition of Equity Impacts, and the Socio-Spatial Factors Involved
In this study, ‘recognition’ means ‘acknowledged as actually occurring or likely to occur’ when explicitly asked about equity impacts and risks of local decarbonisation policies. Although there was general support for these policies, given their contribution to lowering GHG emissions and improving local air quality, all participants recognised the associated equity impacts and risks. Some participants (Delft and Heerlen), however, did not yet recognise equity impacts related to EVs in their cities because the electric mobility transition was still at a very early stage there. Other cities (Leiden and Maastricht) acknowledged the risks but argued that equity impacts could be countered by available alternatives to private ownership of an EV or PV panels (see also Section 3.6).
When discussing the causes of unequal access to sustainable energy and mobility and associated benefits among citizens, various socio-spatial factors were mentioned by the participants.
Cheap, self-produced electricity: Many participants recognised access to rooftop space as an important factor in obtaining cheap, self-produced electricity. Rooftop space makes residents eligible for subsidies for PV panels (Amsterdam), and these PV panels can be used to charge EVs (Rotterdam, The Hague, Maastricht, Leiden, and Delft). However, as also mentioned by many participants, access to rooftop space for installing PV panels depends not only on the physical presence of such space but also on the housing situation, i.e., whether people are single owners, members of an Association of Owners (in the case of apartment buildings), or rent their home privately or from a social housing corporation. Only in the first case can they decide independently to install PV panels; otherwise, they are dependent on other parties, with private landlords being the most difficult to negotiate with. This situation also applies to the residential installation of charging stations powered by cheap electricity from rooftop PV. Many participants recognised language barriers as a cause of inequality in access, affecting the comprehensibility of information from the municipality—for example, on energy measures that citizens could implement themselves (Leiden and Delft)—and the ease with which citizens can apply for subsidies (The Hague). Inequality associated with upgrades to grid capacity was mentioned by multiple participants (Amsterdam and The Hague), who observed that while all citizens pay for the investment in expanding grid capacity, only owners of EVs or PV panels reap the financial benefits.
Private EVs: Relevant factors mentioned regarding equity impacts were: income (all cities), which makes the currently expensive EVs accessible only to wealthier citizens; cognitive, digital, and language skills that facilitate access to subsidies (Amsterdam, Leiden, and Delft); and the possibility of installing charging stations on private property (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Leiden). In relation to income, a participant from Delft noted that banks are less likely to provide a loan to buy an electric car to someone with a lower income. The absence of a well-developed second-hand market for private EVs was also mentioned (Rotterdam and The Hague). Various participants remarked that different routine travel distances can lead to increased inequality (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Heerlen). According to these participants, lower-income groups often need to travel further for jobs and are therefore more vulnerable to measures that make mobility more expensive for them.
Zero-emission zones: The participant from Amsterdam mentioned how zero-emission zones negatively affect the lower-income groups more. High housing prices, rents, and overall living costs have driven these groups out of the city, where they have jobs. If they cannot afford an EV, and there is no good public transport between the places where they live and work, they will be deprived of access to their jobs in the city.
Public charging infrastructure: Participants noticed that charging infrastructure was unequally distributed across the city (Amsterdam and The Hague) or had heard complaints that it was only for the rich (Maastricht and Heerlen). As various participants also suggested, this infrastructure occupies space that could otherwise be used to promote active or public transportation. However, participants from Maastricht questioned whether the space taken up by charging infrastructure really competes with space for other forms of low-carbon mobility.
Digitalisation and smartification: According to the observation by participants from Delft, the increased use of smartphones and applications for different forms of transportation creates difficulties for people who do not individually own a smartphone, do not have sufficient computer literacy, or do not master the language sufficiently.
Other forms of low-carbon mobility: Several participants mentioned less availability of public transportation facilities in certain areas (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Maastricht). Moreover, lower-income groups often need to travel further to their jobs (Amsterdam and Rotterdam), while these groups often receive less compensation for transportation, resulting in even more inequality (Rotterdam). Participants from Maastricht acknowledged this risk but also argued for a probable offsetting effect due to lower housing prices in those areas. Various participants indicated limited availability of shared mobility options in certain parts of the city, especially where such schemes would not be profitable (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague). Another major barrier to shifting from private car-based to public or shared mobility is the social status associated with car ownership, according to several participants. Lower-income groups may buy a car to prove wealth, even if they do not use the vehicle much (Heerlen). Other forms of transportation, such as public transport, cycling (Maastricht), or shared mobility (Heerlen), including electric cargo cycles (Leiden), are perceived as lower status. Finally, some citizens’ lack of cycling skills was mentioned as a barrier (The Hague, Heerlen, Maastricht, and Delft).
3.4. Role of the Municipality in Addressing Equity Impacts
Almost all participants were in favour of an active role for the municipality in addressing equity impacts. At the same time, many indicated the municipality’s inability to take up this role alone due to its dependence on other parties or on policies from higher levels of government. One participant from Leiden did not see an active role for the municipality and considered the national government and social housing corporations to be more appropriate actors. As many people in socio-spatially vulnerable groups live in social housing, these corporations play a major role in determining the extent to which people can participate in the transitions. Other important actors in this respect are energy and mobility providers, as mentioned by participants from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Leiden, and Maastricht. Dependence on higher levels of government concerns primarily national and European regulations (Amsterdam, The Hague, Delft, and Heerlen), for instance, on the pricing of EVs (Rotterdam) and the availability of resources and subsidies (The Hague, Leiden, and Delft). At the same time, participants experienced quite some autonomy in policymaking for mobility transition (Maastricht and Heerlen) but less so for energy transition (Heerlen). Finally, participants pointed out the dependence of municipal policymakers on local politics, as many sustainability and equity policy issues are politically sensitive (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Delft). Examples mentioned include the role of market parties, attention to energy poverty, priority for improved cycling infrastructure, and the banning or reduction of car access to parts of the city (Rotterdam, Leiden, Delft, and Heerlen).
3.5. Current Policies Addressing Equity Impacts
Participants mentioned a variety of current policies that can mitigate equity impacts or risks from urban decarbonisation policies. This mitigation concerns, on the one hand, helping people to overcome barriers in access and, on the other hand, providing alternatives to private ownership of an EV or PV panels. Regarding the former, participants mentioned programmes by which low-income neighbourhoods are provided with help in the energy transition (Amsterdam, The Hague, Leiden, Maastricht, and Delft) or even with extensive help in the entire process of implementing energy or mobility decarbonisation measures (The Hague). Regarding the latter, one participant (from Leiden) pointed out the longstanding possibility of cooperative ownership of PV panels without the need for private rooftop space, but most participants mentioned shared electric mobility as a promising solution against the rising inequalities (Rotterdam, The Hague, Leiden, Maastricht, and Heerlen). The underlying assumption is that everyone can benefit from this mode of electric mobility without the need for a large investment in a private EV. Furthermore, shared mobility could free up space currently occupied by private cars for other low-carbon and accessible modes of transportation, such as walking and cycling. However, the participants also recognised socio-spatial factors that can cause or increase inequalities in access to these mobility options. First, in low-income neighbourhoods, there is no business case (yet) for commercial shared mobility systems (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Heerlen). In addition, an individual must own a smartphone and a credit card and have the language and digital skills to operate both (Amsterdam and Rotterdam). Furthermore, regarding non-commercial car-sharing cooperatives, there are constraints in terms of the ability, time, and mental capacity to engage in car-sharing, which is more difficult for people with financial struggles (The Hague, Maastricht, and Delft). Finally, according to participants from Leiden and Heerlen, in low-income neighbourhoods, shared mobility has a lower social status than individual car ownership and is thus less attractive. A participant from Leiden added that socio-cultural factors can also be a barrier to making use of municipal help for the energy transition. Deep-rooted distrust of institutions and fear of financial problems can cause people to refuse profitable special offers or low-interest loans for energy renovation.
3.6. Policy Improvements
When asked how local policies could be improved to minimise the equity impacts and risks discussed, the participants proposed ways to make municipal organisations more effective in the development and implementation of just-transition policies and suggested possible policy directions and concrete measures. A summary is provided in Table 5.
3.6.1. More Effective Municipal Organisations
More capacity: Local governments are confronted with ambitious and urgent transition goals set by higher levels of government and, at the same time, must determine what these goals mean for local policies (Amsterdam). Due to a lack of time and capacity, a persistent inability to address essential questions may have far-reaching consequences, including unintended equity impacts (Rotterdam), and indicates a need for more capacity and greater attention to equity impacts.
Better internal collaboration: With the increasingly interconnected nature of the various sustainability transitions, most participants recognised a growing need for coordination and cooperation between different departments. Currently, these departments prioritise their own goals, e.g., the decarbonisation of the energy or mobility sector, rather than addressing sustainability and equity from a holistic perspective. An umbrella mechanism was considered lacking, and multiple participants mentioned the need to appoint individuals with knowledge of social justice and other cross-cutting issues that could act as bridge-builders.
Improved communication with citizens: Participants noted barriers to helping groups at risk of being left behind in the sustainability transitions. A major barrier, for which various reasons were mentioned, is a lack of trust among these groups in the government and other institutions, such as social housing corporations (The Hague, Leiden, and Delft). Another important barrier mentioned is fear of taking out a loan or making mistakes when applying for subsidies (Amsterdam, Leiden, and Delft). Several ways to address these barriers were suggested, including making communication with citizens more personal rather than mainly through letters, e.g., by going from door to door (Amsterdam and Delft). A participant from The Hague, however, reported that door-to-door visits were met with distrust and reluctance and emphasised that citizens tend to trust and engage more with people who speak their language or resemble them. Another change in approach mentioned was to address citizens with an attitude of trust rather than distrust (Amsterdam and Delft). This potential change could entail, e.g., being less strict about potential misuse of subsidies and not demanding proof of citizens’ need for a subsidy (Amsterdam and Delft). In The Hague, the subsidy system for the energy transition is currently being overhauled. The plan is to provide subsidies upfront rather than requiring citizens to make investments first and compensating them later. This alternative approach should lower the threshold for low-income groups to make use of these subsidies.
3.6.2. Possible Policy Directions and Measures
Leave it less to the market: According to various participants, local governments should take a more intervening stance and ‘leave it less to the market’. While the market is expected to be innovative and provide affordable mobility options, the benefits are unevenly distributed across society (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Delft, and Heerlen). In the case of shared mobility, the market provides the system where it is most profitable, i.e., in the wealthier neighbourhoods. Suggested solutions include the explicit inclusion of assessment criteria on social justice (Amsterdam) or the requirement to provide shared mobility also in currently unprofitable areas (Rotterdam) as prerequisites in public tenders and permit procedures.
Involve other actors: The participants considered social housing corporations key actors in facilitating the energy and mobility transitions, and suggested agreements between municipalities and these corporations on installing PV panels and charging stations, and creating space for shared mobility or cycling facilities. In this way, these options would become accessible to low-income tenants and contribute to mitigating potential equity impacts of current energy and mobility decarbonisation policies.
Increase promotion of other forms of low-carbon mobility: Provision of accessible and sustainable alternatives could reduce the equity impacts or risks of current policies to promote private electric cars. Several policy measures were suggested to overcome the various barriers among vulnerable groups against making use of these alternatives (see Section 3.6.1). The spatial design of cities and neighbourhoods was considered essential in this respect (Rotterdam, Maastricht, and Heerlen). For example, providing bicycle parking could increase the likelihood of people using them. Furthermore, participants expected that people would lower their resistance to new modes of mobility if they experienced them (The Hague and Maastricht). For example, Maastricht aims to ‘force’ people to use bicycles by raising parking fees. In this way, people may discover the advantages of cycling within the city, in terms of time and cost savings, compared with using a car. Yet concerns were also expressed about the feasibility of shifting to a non-car-based society. As a participant from Rotterdam argued, public transportation is not profitable enough from an economic perspective, and thus, the car can be expected to remain part of society. Participants from Heerlen emphasised the need for extensive measures and actions from the national government to enable such a shift.
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Findings
Across the seven cities, 24 different local decarbonisation policy measures were identified (Table 3). Most of these measures concern mobility, which is typically the responsibility of local governments, whereas energy policy is largely a regional or national responsibility, with local governments in a supporting or implementation role. Only a few of the identified measures target equity risks, including support for people with limited digital skills and support for affordable shared mobility initiatives.
Concerning the equity impacts and risks of urban decarbonisation policies, awareness among urban policymakers was highest for the promotion of self-produced electricity and EVs, and overall higher in the three large cities than in the four medium-sized cities (Table 4). Although there was general support for the current urban decarbonisation policies, given their contribution to lowering GHG emissions and improving local air quality, all policymakers who participated in the interviews recognised the associated equity impacts and risks. However, some participants did not yet recognise local equity impacts due to the early stage of, for instance, the low-carbon mobility transition in their cities. Others acknowledged the risks but argued that they could be countered by available alternatives to private ownership of an EV or PV panels.
Almost all participants were in favour of an active role for the municipality in addressing the equity impacts of current decarbonisation policies. At the same time, many indicated the municipality’s inability to take up this role on its own due to its dependence on other parties or policies from higher levels of government. Participants mentioned various current policies that can mitigate equity impacts or risks from energy and mobility decarbonisation policies. This mitigation concerns, on the one hand, helping people overcome barriers to access and, on the other hand, providing alternatives to private ownership of an EV or solar panels. Regarding the latter, most participants mentioned shared electric mobility as a promising solution for rising inequalities. However, the participants also recognised socio-spatial factors that can cause or increase inequalities in access to this mobility option. When asked how local policies could be improved to mitigate equity impacts and risks, the participants proposed various ways to make municipal organisations more effective in the development and implementation of such policies and suggested possible policy directions and concrete measures (Table 5).
4.2. Limitations
The way this study was conducted has certain limitations. First, while we aimed to interview at least two policymakers from each city with expertise in both the energy and the mobility transition, we did not achieve this aim for Delft (where both participants worked on the energy transition) and Amsterdam (with only one participant, although specialising in equity impacts of sustainability transitions). Second, the targeted policymakers working on energy and mobility are typically located in urban development departments, whereas those working on, e.g., poverty alleviation and literacy improvement are in social affairs departments. Third, the document analysis is, while comprehensive, unlikely to have identified all relevant policy measures for each city. Our analysis of the retrieved documents may have missed not only policy measures but also relevant policy documents that, e.g., were not (yet) published on the municipal website. Yet, while including more (diverse) participants and documents could have resulted in a few additions to the findings, it is unlikely to have changed the outcomes substantially in terms of the broad, observable patterns of (common) types of local policy measures and the awareness and recognition of equity impacts and risks.
While the choice of interviews as our main research method provided in-depth insight into the perspectives of urban policymakers, it also introduced potential biases. First, the limited number of cities that can be covered through interviewing, in combination with convenience sampling of medium-sized cities, may negatively impact the external validity of the findings. However, as our sample included 6 of the 30 Dutch cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants (20% and 30% of the total population in these 30 cities [31]), we expect that our results are largely representative of Dutch cities with dedicated policymakers for energy and mobility decarbonisation. Second, interviewing on value-laden topics always carries the risk of socially desirable answers. This applies in particular to the question of whether the municipality should have an active role in mitigating the equity impacts and risks, but the answers suggest that the interviewees felt free to express their ‘true’ perspectives. Not only did one participant disagree, but the interviewees who did agree also gave qualified answers, explaining how the municipality’s role was dependent on other parties and levels of government.
A different type of limitation is our study’s focus on Dutch cities. While motivated by the stage and pace of the energy and mobility transitions in the Netherlands, this deliberate choice raises the question of the extent to which the findings and conclusions can be generalised to other countries. On an important note, our findings largely confirmed the listed energy and mobility decarbonisation policies and associated equity impacts and risks (Table 1) derived from Payakkamas et al. [17]’s systematic literature review. As the specific publications underlying this inventory all concern research undertaken in European and North American cities, we expect our findings and conclusions to be relevant for these geographical contexts.
4.3. Novel Insights
The type and focus of the urban energy and mobility decarbonisation policies, as found in our study of the seven Dutch cities, were similar to what Payakkamas et al. [17] reported in their review of the international academic literature. This alignment concerns a focus on private rooftop PV and private ownership of EVs, as well as on sustainability rather than equity impacts. Additionally, this study provided much more detailed insight into what the concrete policy measures and plans are, how widely these measures and plans are adopted, and what the differences between Dutch cities are in these respects. Other novel findings concern the widespread awareness and recognition of specific equity impacts and risks of the current energy and mobility transition policies among urban policymakers in the large cities but less so in the medium-sized cities. Yet, in the interviews, policymakers from both the large and the medium-sized cities identified various socio-spatial factors, which are relevant to the equity impacts and risks but were not included in the literature-derived guiding framework (Table 1), such as various socio-cultural barriers. Overall, the interviews indicated the presence of a general sensitivity among the urban policymakers to the possible equity impacts of the current transition policies, despite the current lack of adequate policy measures to address these impacts.
Concerning these policy measures, the study made clear that Dutch urban policymakers have fairly high expectations of shared electric mobility to counter the equity impacts of policies focusing on private ownership of electric cars. Regarding the development of new policies to address the equity impacts and risks, the participants made the noteworthy suggestion to first make municipal organisations more effective in the development and implementation of such policies. Nevertheless, the suggested policy directions showed that Dutch urban policymakers also have very concrete ideas about possible measures worth taking to make decarbonisation policies more just and inclusive.
Income-dependent financial policy measures, as suggested by various authors (such as Guo and Kontou [27], Xing et al. [28], and Tilly et al. [25]), are not within the jurisdiction of municipal governments in the Netherlands. Alternatively, current and proposed measures focus on making subsidies and other means of support more accessible, as also suggested by Hennessy and Syal [29]. Pucci [20] and Tilly et al. [25] emphasised the need to address spatial inequalities but did not provide concrete proposals on how to do so. In this regard, the participants in our study proposed including the provision of public or shared mobility, even in areas that are currently not profitable, as a requirement in public tenders and permit procedures. A novel idea, finally, was the proposal to make agreements with social housing corporations on the installation of rooftop PV, charging stations, and shared mobility facilities.
Finally, an important novel insight concerns the question of how the actual implementation of equity risk mitigation measures at the urban level might be supported. The responsible urban policymakers we interviewed generally showed awareness of equity impacts and risks of local decarbonisation policies, recognised these in many cases in their own cities, supported an active role for the municipality in addressing these impacts and risks, and proposed realistic measures for possible mitigation. Under such conditions, a bottleneck to the actual implementation of policy innovations is often a lack of trust among the concerned actors that these measures will be feasible and effective, which could be overcome by an experimental approach [37,38]. This involves small-scale, real-life policy experiments with active involvement of the relevant stakeholders and political support for follow-up in case of success, preferably conducted by a learning network of like-minded cities [39].
5. Conclusions and Outlook
Analysis of local policy documents and interviews with policymakers from seven Dutch cities provided insights into the landscape of current local decarbonisation policies, the awareness and recognition of associated equity impacts and risks among urban policymakers, and their views on whether and how local governments can and should address these equity impacts and risks. The findings indicate a general sensitivity among the interviewed policymakers to the possible equity impacts of the current decarbonisation policies. There are not yet many policy measures that address these impacts, but the policymakers proposed a range of possible measures to make these policies more just and inclusive.
Follow-up studies should test the wider validity of the finding of a general sense of awareness and responsibility among urban policymakers concerning the equity impacts and risks of current decarbonisation policies. Such studies may take the form of surveys with a much broader geographical scope and larger numbers of participants (as conducted by, e.g., Liu et al. [40]). Further research on effective mitigation measures should, first and foremost, address the potential of shared electric mobility to provide equitable access to sustainable transportation. As previously mentioned, shared electric mobility in its current form does not yet provide such access; hence, follow-up studies should focus on how inequitable access can be improved. Second, the proposed policy improvements (Table 5) deserve further study. Several of the suggested measures, such as the integration of social justice criteria in tenders and permits and collaboration with social housing corporations, are concrete enough to be tested for impacts and scaling potential in real-life, multi-actor urban experiments [41,42].
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/urbansci9100405/s1, Table S1: Interview guide.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.d.K.; methodology, J.d.K.; validation, J.d.K.; formal analysis, P.P. and M.V.; investigation, P.P. and M.V.; data curation, P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P., J.d.K. and M.V.; writing—review and editing, P.P. and J.d.K.; visualization, P.P.; supervision, J.d.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because it is a non-interventional study. All participants were assured anonymity and fully informed of why the research is being conducted, how their data will be used, and if there were any risks involved in participating.
Informed Consent Statement
Audio-recorded, oral informed consent was obtained from the participants.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Policy documents included in the analysis, per city and policy domain.
| City | Policy Domain | Policy Documents |
|---|---|---|
| Amsterdam | Energy | Volg het Beleid: Duurzame Energie (https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/duurzaamheid/duurzame-energie/, accessed on 12 September 2023) |
| Mobility | Amsterdam Aantrekkelijk Bereikbaar: MobiliteitsAanpak Amsterdam 2030 (https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/99028/amsterdam-aantrekkelijk-bereikbaar, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Uitstootvrije Mobiliteit Amsterdam: Uitvoeringsagenda 2023–2026 (https://assets.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/1036172/uitvoeringsagenda_uitstootvrije_mobiliteit.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Actieplan Schone Lucht: Uitstootvrije Mobiliteit Amsterdam (https://assets.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/863561/actieplan_schone_lucht.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Amsterdam Maakt Ruimte: Agenda Amsterdam Autoluw (https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/49784/amsterdam-autoluw—amsterdam-maakt-ruimte, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Volg het Beleid: Verkeer en Vervoer (https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/verkeer-vervoer/, accessed on 12 September 2023) | ||
| Verkeer en Vervoer (https://www.amsterdam.nl/verkeer-vervoer, accessed on 12 September 2025) | ||
| Maatregelen Amsterdam Autoluw (https://www.amsterdam.nl/verkeer-vervoer/agenda-amsterdam-autoluw/maatregelen-amsterdam-autoluw/, accessed on 12 September 2023) | ||
| Deelvervoer (https://www.amsterdam.nl/deelvervoer, accessed on 12 September 2023) | ||
| Sustainability and climate | Nieuw Amsterdams Klimaat: Routekaart Amsterdam Klimaatneutraal 2050 (https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-leefomgeving/duurzaam-amsterdam/publicaties-duurzaam-groen/nieuw-amsterdams-klimaat-routekaart/, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Omgevingsvisie Amsterdam 2050: Een Menselijke Metropool (https://assets.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/1007002/0-136821_omgevingsvisie-2050-20211116_def.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Volg het Beleid: Duurzaamheid (https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/duurzaamheid/, accessed on 12 September 2023) | ||
| Rotterdam | Energy | Leidraad Zonne-energie (https://duurzaam010.nl/content/uploads/2022/01/GRO-Leidraad-zonne-energie-toegankelijk_gecomprimeerd.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) |
| Energieklusser Aanvragen (https://www.rotterdam.nl/energieklusser-aanvragen, accessed on 12 September 2023) | ||
| Mobility | Rotterdamse Mobiliteits Aanpak (https://www.rotterdam.nl/media/1077, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Voortgang van de Klimaattafel Mobiliteit in 2021 (https://archieven.watdoetdegemeente.rotterdam.nl/begroting2023/programmas/energietransitie2/1-voortgang/, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Stappenplan ZES: Stappen richting Zero Emissie Stadslogistiek (ZES) in Rotterdam in 2025 (https://logistiek010.nl/app/uploads/2020/11/Stappenplan-ZES.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Elektrisch Rijden (https://www.rotterdam.nl/elektrisch-rijden, accessed on 12 September 2023) | ||
| Sustainability and climate | Rotterdams Duurzaamheidskompas Rotterdamse Klimaataanpak (https://vng.nl/sites/default/files/2019-11/rdam-klimaatakkoord_plan_van_aanpak.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Actieplan Isolatie Woningen en Toekomstbestendige VvE’s (https://duurzaam010.nl/content/uploads/2023/05/23034_Raadsinformatiebrief-Isolatieaanpak_TOEG5968.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| The Hague | Energy | Het Klimaat Actieplan Rotterdam (https://rotterdam.foleon.com/kar/klimaat-actieplan/, accessed on 12 September 2023) Nota Duurzaamheid: Schone Energie in een Groene Stad (https://www.denhaag.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/014-191449_DSB_Nota-Duurzaamheid-NL_v6-toegankelijk-TG.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) |
| Duurzame Stad Den Haag: Duurzaam Wonen en Ondernemen met Schone Energie (https://duurzamestad.denhaag.nl/, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Mobility | Strategie Mobiliteitstransitie Den Haag 2022–2040: Samen Werken aan een Bereikbare, Leefbare en Verkeersveilige Stad (https://denhaag.raadsinformatie.nl/document/10877149/1/RIS310664_Bijlage, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Participatie Haagse Mobiliteitstransitie: In Gesprek met de Stad over de Toekomst van Verkeer en Vervoer (https://bohscheveningen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIS306126_Bijlage-Haagse-Mobiliteitstransitie.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Sustainability and climate | Omgevingsvisie Den Haag 2050: Ambitiedocument—Denk Mee over de Toekomst. Samen Maken We de Stad (https://omgevingsvisie.denhaag.nl/uploads/attachments/cl8y4uh5u8u280i6emiveiq8q-beleidsinventarisatie.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Het Haags Klimaatakkoord: Samen voor een Duurzame, Groene en Gezonde Stad (https://duurzamestad.denhaag.nl/denhaag-klimaatneutraal/haags-klimaatakkoord/, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Leiden | Energy | Energietransitie in Leiden (https://gemeente.leiden.nl/projecten/energietransitie-in-leiden/, accessed on 14 November 2024) |
| Mobility | Leiden Duurzaam Bereikbaar: Mobiliteitsnota Leiden 2020–2030 (https://leiden.notubiz.nl/document/8787983/1/200030_Bijlage_1_Mobiliteitsnota_bij_Raadsvoorstel_Mobiliteitsnota, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Ruimte voor een Groen, Vitaal Leiden: Agenda Autoluwe Binnenstad (https://gemeente.leiden.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/agenda-autoluwe-binnenstad.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Steden Bevoorraden Zonder CO2-uitstoot (https://gemeente.leiden.nl/inwoners-en-ondernemers/werkzaamheden-in-leiden/mobiliteit-in-leiden/steden-bevoorraden-zonder-co2-uitstoot/, accessed on 13 September 2023) | ||
| Sustainability and climate | Routekaart Klimaatneutraal: Richting een Klimaatneutraal Leiden in 2050 (https://leiden.notubiz.nl/document/10373047/1, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Omgevingsvisie Leiden 2040: Leiden Stad van Ontdekkingen en Kloppend Hart in de Regio (https://gemeente.leiden.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/omgevingsvisie-leiden-2040.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Samen Leven in Leiden: Beleidsakkoord Gemeente Leiden 2022–2026 (https://sleutelstad.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Beleidsakkoord-2022-2026-Samen-leven-in-Leiden.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Maastricht | Energy | Energiestrategie (https://www.gemeentemaastricht.nl/bouwen-en-verbouwen/duurzaam/energiestrategie, accessed on 7 September 2023) |
| Energiekostensten (https://www.gemeentemaastricht.nl/bouwen-en-verbouwen/energie-en-klimaat/energiekosten, accessed on 7 September 2023) | ||
| Mobility | Actieplan Fietsen in Maastricht 2020–2025: Een Omgevingsprogramma ter Bevordering van het Fietsgebruik in Maastricht en de Regio (https://www.maastrichtbeleid.nl/beleidsinformatie/Beleidsinformatie/2020/ActieplanFietseninMaastricht/ActieplanFietseninMaastricht.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Actieplan Fietsparkeren Maastricht 2020–2025: Een Actieplan voor de Binnenstad en de Buitenwijken van Maastricht (https://ondernemendwyck.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/B2-Actieplan-Fietsparkeren-in-Maastricht.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Implementatieplan: Zero Emissie Stadslogistiek Maastricht (https://www.maastrichtbeleid.nl/beleidsinformatie/Openbarebesluiten/2021/Openbarebesluiten9februari2021/Raadsvoorstel17-2021-InvoerZeroEmissiezoneStadslogistiek/Raadsvoorstel17-2021-bijlage2b-ImplementatieplanZES-kort2021.01.28DEF.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Oplaadpunt Elektrische Auto (https://www.gemeentemaastricht.nl/parkeren-en-verkeer/oplaadpunt-elektrische-auto, accessed on 7 September 2023) | ||
| Sustainability and climate | Perspectief voor een Gezonde Stad: Stadsvisie Maastricht 2040 (https://www.thuisinmaastricht.nl/sites/tim/files/2022-03/Stadsvisie2040definitiefinclusiefEN.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Omgevingsvisie Maastricht 2040: Koester de Balans (https://www.maastrichtbeleid.nl/beleidsinformatie/Beleidsinformatie/2020/OmgevingsvisieMaastricht2040/OmgevingsvisieMaastricht2040.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | ||
| Een Klimaatneutrale Stad (https://www.gemeentemaastricht.nl/bouwen-en-verbouwen/energie-en-klimaat/een-klimaatneutrale-stad, accessed on 7 September 2023) | ||
| Delft | Energy | Energie (https://www.delft.nl/energie, accessed on 13 September 2023) |
| Mobility | Mobiliteitsprogramma Delft 2040: Ons Delft, Duurzaam Bereikbaar (https://www.delft.nl/sites/default/files/2021-03/Mobiliteitsplan-Delft-2040.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Wat Gaan We Ervoor Doen? (https://begroting.delft.nl/beleidsbegroting/bereikbare-stad/wat-gaan-we-ervoor-doen, accessed on 7 September 2023) | ||
| Wat Willen We Bereiken? (https://begroting.delft.nl/beleidsbegroting/bereikbare-stad/wat-willen-we-bereiken, accessed on 13 September 2023) | ||
| Sustainability and climate | Omgevingsvisie Delft 2040: ‘Samen Maken We de Stad!’ (https://media.delft.nl/pdf/Omgevingsvisie/Omgevingsvisie-Delft-2040.pdf, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Heerlen | Energy | Parkstad Limburg Energietransitie (PALET): PALET 2.0—HEERLEN (https://heerlen.bestuurlijkeinformatie.nl/Agenda/Document/40c573df-5f53-4b75-bf7f-91efbbca2571?documentId=e879aa08-3ae6-42fc-890a-eb6490cce4ab&agendaItemId=103fabea-e6ea-41ec-8952-7ef48b419845, accessed on 14 November 2024) |
| Zonnepanelenproject Parkstad (https://www.heerlen.nl/zonnepanelenproject.html, accessed on 7 September 2023) | ||
| Hulp bij Energiekosten (https://www.heerlen.nl/energiekosten.html, accessed on 13 September 2023) | ||
| Verbond voor Energierechtvaardigheid (https://www.heerlen.nl/duurzaam/energietransitie-projecten/verbond-voor-energierechtvaardigheid.html, accessed on 7 September 2023) | ||
| Mobility | Programma Mobiliteit: Heerlen in Beweging (https://heerlen.bestuurlijkeinformatie.nl/Document/View/bf36c943-4535-4b89-937d-0b9dd739ffda, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Sustainability and climate | Plan van Aanpak Omgevingsvisie: Programma Omgevingswet Heerlen (https://heerlen.bestuurlijkeinformatie.nl/Agenda/Document/905fec06-b699-44d8-874f-797bb7c2535b?documentId=74facd81-7dfb-4b19-9109-907eca796b1b&agendaItemId=bad14f51-b910-4838-b848-d856129a51c5, accessed on 14 November 2024) | |
| Omgevingsvisie Heerlen (https://www.heerlen.nl/omgevingsvisie.html, accessed on 7 September 2023) |
References
- Seto, K.C.; Churkina, G.; Hsu, A.; Keller, M.; Newman, P.W.G.; Qin, B.; Ramaswami, A. From low- to net-zero carbon cities: The next global agenda. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2021, 46, 377–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, X.; Sua, C.-W.; Umar, M.; Shao, X.; Lobonţ, O.-R. The race to zero emissions: Can renewable energy be the path to carbon neutrality? J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Rosa, M.; Bianco, V.; Barth, H.; Pereira da Silva, P.; Vargas Salgado, C.; Pallonetto, F. Technologies and strategies to support energy transition in urban building and transportation sectors. Energies 2023, 16, 4317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markard, J.; Rosenbloom, D. Phases of the net-zero energy transition and strategies to achieve it. In Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions; Araújo, K.M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampropoulos, I.; Alskaif, T.; Schram, W.; Bontekoe, E.; Coccato, S.; van Sark, W. Review of energy in the built environment. Smart Cities 2020, 3, 248–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, C.; Costa, E. Types of policies for the joint diffusion of electric vehicles with renewable energies and their use worldwide. Energies 2022, 15, 7585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Dijk, M.; Colombo, C. Improving multilevel policy mixes for sustainable urban mobility transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2024, 50, 100808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, L.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Paz, A. Smart urban mobility innovations: A comprehensive review and evaluation. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 196034–196049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Silvestre, M.L.; Favuzza, S.; Sanseverino, E.R.; Zizzo, G. How decarbonization, digitalization and decentralization are changing key power infrastructures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canzler, W.; Engels, F.; Rogge, J.-C.; Simon, D.; Wentland, A. From “living lab” to strategic action field: Bringing together energy, mobility, and Information Technology in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 27, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colbertaldo, P.; Cerniauskas, S.; Grube, T.; Robinius, M.; Stolten, D.; Campanari, S. Clean mobility infrastructure and sector integration in long-term energy scenarios: The case of Italy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, H.; Buffat, R.; Bucher, D.; Hamper, J.; Raubal, M. Using rooftop photovoltaic generation to cover individual electric vehicle demand—A detailed case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 111969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadis, E.; Tsatsaronis, G. Challenges in the decarbonization of the energy sector. Energy 2020, 205, 118025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González Venegas, F.; Petit, M.; Perez, Y. Active integration of electric vehicles into distribution grids: Barriers and frameworks for flexibility services. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hua, W.; Jing, R.; Zhou, Y. Planning integrated energy systems coupling V2G as a flexible storage. Energy 2022, 239 Pt B, 122215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinot, E. Grid integration of renewable energy: Flexibility, innovation, and experience. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 223–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payakkamas, P.; de Kraker, J.; Dijk, M. Transformation of the urban energy–mobility nexus: Implications for sustainability and equity. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J. EVs are not the answer: A mobility justice critique of electric vehicle transitions. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2020, 110, 1993–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortar, N.; Ryghaug, M. Should all cars be electric by 2025? The electric car debate in Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pucci, P. Spatial dimensions of electric mobility—Scenarios for efficient and fair diffusion of electric vehicles in the Milan Urban Region. Cities 2021, 110, 103069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boucher, J.L.; Mérida, W. Inflated lives and a clean tech privilege in Washington State: Policy amidst spatialized affluence. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 85, 102418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martiskainen, M.; Sovacool, B.K.; Lacey-Barnacle, M.; Hopkins, D.; Jenkins, K.E.H.; Simcock, N.; Mattioli, G.; Bouzarovski, S. New dimensions of vulnerability to energy and transport poverty. Joule 2021, 5, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sareen, S. Digitalisation and social inclusion in multi-scalar smart energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 81, 102251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Kester, J.; Noel, L.; Zarazua de Rubens, G. Energy injustice and Nordic electric mobility: Inequality, elitism, and externalities in the electrification of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transport. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 157, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilly, N.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Degirmenci, K.; Paz, A. How sustainable is electric vehicle adoption? Insights from a PRISMA review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 117, 105950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Hachem, W.; De Giovanni, P. Accelerating the transition to alternative fuel vehicles through a Distributive Justice perspective. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 75, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, S.; Kontou, E. Disparities and equity issues in electric vehicles rebate allocation. Energy Policy 2021, 154, 112291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, J.; Leard, B.; Li, S. What does an electric vehicle replace? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2021, 107, 102432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennessy, E.M.; Syal, S.M. Assessing justice in California’s transition to electric vehicles. iScience 2023, 26, 106856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patten, M.L.; Newhart, M. Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inwoners per Gemeente. Available online: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-bevolking/regionaal/inwoners (accessed on 24 December 2024).
- Netbeheerders Zien Aantal Huishoudens met Zonnepanelen Verder Groeien in 2023. Available online: https://www.netbeheernederland.nl/artikelen/nieuws/netbeheerders-zien-aantal-huishoudens-met-zonnepanelen-verder-groeien-2023 (accessed on 24 December 2024).
- Wie Rijdt er Elektrisch? Available online: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/statistische-trends/2023/wie-rijdt-er-elektrisch- (accessed on 24 December 2024).
- Nabielek, K.; Hamers, D. De Stad Verbeeld: 12 Infographics over de Stedelijke Leefomgeving; Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2015; Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/PBL_2015_De_stad_verbeeld_1744.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2025).
- Salderingsregeling voor Zonnepanelen. Available online: www.milieucentraal.nl/energie-besparen/zonnepanelen/salderingsregeling-voor-zonnepanelen (accessed on 24 December 2024).
- Alles over de Kosten van Elektrisch Rijden. Available online: https://www.anwb.nl/auto/elektrisch-rijden/kosten (accessed on 24 December 2024).
- Laakso, S.; Berg, A.; Annala, M. Dynamics of experimental governance: A meta-study of functions and uses of climate governance experiments. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 169, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadgen, B.; Huitema, D. Experimentation at the interface of science and policy: A multi-case analysis of how policy experiments influence political decision-makers. Policy Sci. 2018, 51, 161–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholl, C.; de Kraker, J.; Dijk, M. Enhancing the contribution of urban living labs to sustainability transformations: Towards a meta-lab approach. Urban Transform. 2022, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Payakkamas, P.; Dijk, M.; de Kraker, J. GIS models for sustainable urban mobility planning: Current use, future needs and potentials. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 384–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijk, M.; de Kraker, J.; Hommels, A. Anticipating constraints on upscaling from urban innovation experiments. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholl, C.; de Kraker, J. Urban planning by experiment: Practices, outcomes, and impacts. Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Urban decarbonisation policies and their equity impacts and risks, adapted from Payakkamas et al. [17].
Table 1.
Urban decarbonisation policies and their equity impacts and risks, adapted from Payakkamas et al. [17].
| Policy | Equity Impacts and Risks |
|---|---|
| Promotion of self-produced electricity | Wealthier owners of homes with rooftop space are better positioned to buy and install solar panels and benefit from cheap, self-produced, renewable electricity. |
| Promotion of private EVs | Wealthier citizens are better positioned to buy and use EVs and reap the associated benefits (e.g., exemption from congestion tolls, reduced parking fees, and energy storage capacity). |
| Owners of homes with driveways can conveniently charge their EVs with cheap (possibly self-produced) electricity. | |
| Poorer citizens who cannot afford EVs not only lack the associated benefits but also suffer from burdens related to fossil-fuelled cars (e.g., higher fuel costs and higher tolls). | |
| Low/zero-emission zoning | Poorer citizens who cannot afford EVs will face difficulty accessing the low/zero-emission zones in the city by car. |
| Roll-out of charging infrastructure | In poorer neighbourhoods with few electric car owners, either no charging stations or only a few are installed. |
| Digitalisation and smartification policies | Citizens with limited digital and linguistic competencies cannot access mobility options that make use of smart, digital technology (e.g., smartphone applications) or obtain crucial information (about, e.g., support schemes). |
| Promotion of other forms of low-carbon mobility | The provision of public transportation and/or shared mobility is often lower in more remote, sparsely populated, and/or poorer neighbourhoods. |
| For citizens living in remote neighbourhoods, cycling and walking are usually not feasible as alternatives to motorised transportation. |
Table 2.
Participants per city, date, and modality of interviews.
| City | Position/Field of Expertise | Date and Modality |
|---|---|---|
| Amsterdam | Junior advisor/urban strategy | 16 June 2023, individual, in-person + email |
| Rotterdam | Policy advisor/traffic and transportation | 15 June 2023, group, in-person + email |
| Policy advisor/(electric) mobility | ||
| Strategic advisor/energy transition and mobility | ||
| Policy advisor/sustainable mobility | ||
| The Hague | Senior policy advisor/sustainable mobility | 26 June 2023, group, in-person + email |
| Senior policy advisor/energy transition | ||
| Project leader/electric mobility and air quality | ||
| Policy officer/resilience | ||
| Policy officer/air quality | ||
| Leiden | Project manager/sustainability and mobility | 22 June 2023, individual, online video call |
| Policy officer/energy transition | 19 July 2023, individual, online video call | |
| Maastricht | Senior policy advisor/sustainable mobility | 27 June 2023, group, in-person + email |
| Senior policy officer and strategist/sustainability | ||
| Delft | Project manager/energy poverty | 28 June 2023, individual, online video call + email |
| Policy advisor/energy transition | 18 July 2023, individual, online video call | |
| Heerlen | Policy officer/environment and sustainability | 23 June 2023, group, online video call |
| Policy officer/energy and sustainability | ||
| Policy officer/traffic and transportation |
Table 3.
Local decarbonisation policies in the seven Dutch cities.
| Policies | Amsterdam | Rotterdam | The Hague | Leiden | Maastricht | Delft | Heerlen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promotion of Self-produced Electricity | |||||||
| Promotion of rooftop PV | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Upgrade of power grid | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Support for (solar) energy cooperatives/collectives | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Tackling legal and regulatory obstacles | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Support for mass retrofitting of homes | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Promotion of Private EVs | |||||||
| Exchange of polluting vehicles | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Low/zero-emission Zoning | |||||||
| Limited access and parking for polluting passenger vehicles | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Prioritisation of zero-emission passenger vehicles | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Roll-out of Charging Infrastructure | |||||||
| Expansion of charging infrastructure | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Possibility to request public charging stations | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Channel to report unnecessarily long charging | ✓ | ||||||
| Parking space with solar-powered charging combination | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Digitalisation and Smartification Policies | |||||||
| Digital platform (e.g., mobile application) and infrastructure for Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Automated (public) transportation as a last-mile solution | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Support for individuals with limited digital skills and literacy | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Promotion of Other Forms of Low-Carbon Mobility | |||||||
| (Affordable) public transportation with improved coverage | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Electrification of public transportation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Electrification of taxi fleet | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Affordable mobility-sharing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Sharing of electric (micro-)mobility | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Expansion of intermodal exchange hubs | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Neighbourhood batteries next to mobility hubs | ✓ | ||||||
| Making urban cycling more attractive | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| (Re)design of public space with care for non-car users | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Table 4.
Policymakers’ awareness of the equity impacts and risks of local decarbonisation policies in seven Dutch cities.
Table 4.
Policymakers’ awareness of the equity impacts and risks of local decarbonisation policies in seven Dutch cities.
| Awareness of Equity Impacts Due to … | Amsterdam | Rotterdam | The Hague | Leiden | Maastricht | Delft | Heerlen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promotion of self-produced electricity | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Promotion of private EVs | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Low/zero-emission zoning | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Roll-out of charging infrastructure | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Digitalisation and smartification policies | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Promotion of other forms of low-carbon mobility | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Table 5.
Suggested policy improvements to mitigate equity impacts and risks of current urban decarbonisation policies.
Table 5.
Suggested policy improvements to mitigate equity impacts and risks of current urban decarbonisation policies.
| More Effective Municipal Organisations | |
|---|---|
| More capacity | More capacity and attention for equity impacts of urban sustainability transitions |
| Better internal collaboration | Holistic approach to sustainability and equity across the different urban sustainability transitions |
| Improved communication with citizens | More tailored and trust-based approaches towards citizens for whom a lack of trust is a barrier to access to sustainable energy and mobility |
| Possible Policy Directions and Measures | |
| Leave it less to the market | Include social justice criteria in public tenders and permits |
| Involve other actors | Make agreements with social housing corporations on installing rooftop PV, charging stations, and shared mobility facilities |
| Increase promotion of other forms of low-carbon mobility | Address the barriers for socially and spatially vulnerable groups to the use of sustainable alternatives to private ownership of EV |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. 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/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Payakkamas, P.; de Kraker, J.; Vodegel, M. Urban Policymakers’ Perspectives on the Equity Impacts and Risks of Local Energy and Mobility Decarbonisation Policies: A Case Study of Dutch Cities. Urban Sci. 2025, 9, 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9100405
AMA Style
Payakkamas P, de Kraker J, Vodegel M. Urban Policymakers’ Perspectives on the Equity Impacts and Risks of Local Energy and Mobility Decarbonisation Policies: A Case Study of Dutch Cities. Urban Science. 2025; 9(10):405. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9100405
Chicago/Turabian StylePayakkamas, Peerawat, Joop de Kraker, and Marijn Vodegel. 2025. "Urban Policymakers’ Perspectives on the Equity Impacts and Risks of Local Energy and Mobility Decarbonisation Policies: A Case Study of Dutch Cities" Urban Science 9, no. 10: 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9100405
APA StylePayakkamas, P., de Kraker, J., & Vodegel, M. (2025). Urban Policymakers’ Perspectives on the Equity Impacts and Risks of Local Energy and Mobility Decarbonisation Policies: A Case Study of Dutch Cities. Urban Science, 9(10), 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9100405
