A Systematic Roadmap for Energy Transition: Bridging Governance and Community Engagement in Ecuador

Highlights

• Explores Ecuador’s energy shift through a three-phase governance roadmap.
• Emphasizes bottom–up governance via the policy–politics–polity triad.
• Fossil fuel reliance and subsidies create deep-rooted transition barriers.
• Proposes a scalable, transformative model for centralized systems in the Global South.

What are the main findings?

• This study develops a three-phase framework to analyze Ecuador’s energy transition, integrating policy, polity, and politics as key governance dimensions.
• As a developing country dependent on fossil fuels and subsidizing them for over five decades, Ecuador faces structural challenges in shifting from a centralized energy system to a hybrid and eventually bottom–up governance model.

What is the implication of the main finding?

• Recognizing the interplay between policy, polity, and politics provides a structured approach to designing adaptive governance strategies for energy transitions in fossil fuel-dependent economies.
• The proposed framework offers a scalable model that can inform broader governance transitions beyond the energy sector, particularly in developing countries with long-standing energy subsidies.

Abstract

This study develops a comprehensive roadmap for Ecuador’s energy transition using a hybrid governance model that balances top–down and bottom–up approaches. By integrating national directives with local participation, this framework aims to enhance energy consumption and drive sustainable transitions. This research employs a mixed methodology, combining bibliometric analysis and governance structure assessment to evaluate Ecuador’s centralized energy system and its challenges. A three-phase strategy is proposed: Phase 1 introduces short-term interventions such as efficiency improvements and public awareness campaigns. Phase 2 focuses on decentralization, fostering local renewable energy production and community involvement. Phase 3 envisions a fully decentralized system where local entities operate autonomously within a supportive regulatory framework. The central research question is, how can a balanced governance framework foster sustainable ECB in Ecuador? By aligning national policies with local needs, this approach enhances policy adaptability, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability. Anticipated outcomes include improved energy efficiency, reduced reliance on fossil fuels, and increased community engagement in decision making. The findings contribute to global discussions on energy governance, demonstrating how hybrid models can facilitate sustainable energy transitions, particularly in developing countries with historically centralized systems.

1. Introduction

The transition to sustainable energy systems presents a complex challenge that requires a comprehensive understanding of governance frameworks. Energy governance, encompassing the structures and processes that shape energy policies, reflects dynamic interactions among stakeholders [1,2]. As societies confront the dual pressures of climate change and energy security, effective governance is essential for ensuring equitable, participatory, and environmentally sustainable transitions.

A central concept in this debate is bottom–up governance (BuG), which emphasizes local engagement and innovation in energy system design. Unlike traditional top–down approaches controlled by central authorities, BuG fosters community involvement and grassroots initiatives tailored to local contexts [3]. By empowering communities, BuG enhances adaptability and responsiveness [4].

The policy–politics–polity triad offers key insights into BuG. Policies define formal rules, politics shape decision making through power dynamics, and the polity includes institutions that manage these interactions. Together, they reveal how governance frameworks influence energy consumption behavior (ECB) [5].

A hybrid governance model, combining top–down and bottom–up strategies, is particularly relevant in developing countries with predominantly centralized systems [6]. Transitioning to an inclusive model is critical to addressing local challenges. Top–down policies provide regulatory and financial support, while bottom–up efforts ensure context-specific solutions and community ownership [7,8]. Achieving this balance requires evaluating system efficiency [9], building local capacity through training and resource sharing [10], and promoting supportive legislation and public engagement [7,11]. Research into socio-cultural and economic drivers of energy behavior further supports adaptive, community-based policymaking [2,12].

This study proposes a governance roadmap for Ecuador’s energy transition, integrating local knowledge with a structured strategy. As the country begins its journey toward energy sovereignty, a phased approach is essential. The proposed roadmap consists of three phases: (i) Phase 1 focuses on short-term actions such as energy efficiency and awareness campaigns to promote sustainable behaviors. (ii) Phase 2 emphasizes decentralizing decision making, expanding local renewable generation, and enhancing community participation. (iii) Phase 3 envisions a fully decentralized system, where local actors operate autonomously within a regulatory framework that encourages innovation and sustainability.

This research is guided by this question: how can a balanced governance framework, combining top–down and bottom–up approaches, enhance behavioral change in energy consumption in Ecuador? The novelty lies in proposing a phased, context-specific roadmap that merges centralized efficiency with grassroots empowerment. This fills gaps in the existing literature, which often addresses bottom–up strategies without embedding them in a structured governance framework.

Methodologically, this study uses a five-part approach, including a two-stage bibliographic review. The first stage identified 305 studies on participatory methodologies and decentralized decision making, while the second narrowed the focus to BuG in energy systems, highlighting key works such as those by Međugorac and Schuitema [13] and Sohre and Schubert [14]. This framework provides a solid theoretical base for understanding hybrid governance in energy transitions.

This paper is structured as follows: The Theoretical Background explores BuG within the policy–politics–polity triad and its link to ECB in countries with centralized governance. It reviews relevant research, identifies gaps, and outlines the rationale. The Methodology describes the combined governance approach. The Results offer a systemic analysis of Ecuador’s transition, covering the emerging energy landscape, stakeholders, and the three-phase framework. The Discussion compares governance structures across phases, identifying challenges and implications for Ecuador’s energy sector, leading to the Conclusions.

The comparative analysis reveals distinct challenges across the proposed phases of Ecuador’s energy transition. In Phase 1, regulatory reform is essential to integrate decentralized initiatives within the existing centralized framework. Phase 2 must confront financial obstacles, particularly the gradual removal of fossil fuel subsidies and the promotion of investments in renewable energy. Phase 3 relies on social acceptance and the empowerment of local communities to foster autonomous and sustainable energy governance. This phased progression illustrates how governance structures can evolve over time—demonstrating the short-term effectiveness of hybrid models while laying the groundwork for a fully decentralized system. By aligning local needs with national policy, the proposed roadmap aims to enhance energy efficiency, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and promote inclusive participation. These findings not only support Ecuador’s pathway toward energy sovereignty but also contribute to broader discussions on how hybrid governance models can reconcile centralized planning with bottom–up innovation in the global energy transition.

2. Theoretical Framework

Governance refers to the processes through which individuals establish and enforce the rules needed to achieve desired outcomes [13]. It involves coordinating collective actions among diverse social actors to pursue shared goals [15]. Key elements of governance include policy (goals, priorities, and instruments), polity (institutional structures and legal frameworks), and politics (the processes through which power is exercised and decisions are made) [14,16]. A bottom–up approach in governance, by engaging citizens and stakeholders, fosters social acceptance and enhances ownership in the decision-making process, driving sustainable energy consumption and behavioral change [8].

2.1. Bottom–Up Governance (BuG) Based on the Policy–Politics–Polity Triad

While the technical and economic aspects of sustainable energy systems have been extensively studied, the social and political dimensions are equally critical. Understanding governance processes, particularly those influencing energy consumption behavior, is essential for designing effective and inclusive policies [2]. Recent literature underscores the need to conceptualize bottom–up governance (BuG) to better explain and influence household energy behavior. This entails identifying key design features that shape individual decision making and addressing the dimensions of policy, polity, and politics as core analytical categories [17,18].

In policy terms, top–down strategies typically use legislative and economic tools, whereas bottom–up approaches rely on “soft” instruments such as information, labelling, or feedback, which are particularly effective in shaping behavioral change [14,16]. Top–down and bottom–up reflect contrasting governance logics: while the former is state-led and hierarchical, the latter emerges from citizens, civil society, and local actors [8,17].

Polity refers to institutional structures, legal systems, and organizational arrangements. Politics involves the exercise of power in decision-making processes. While top–down governance is driven by state institutions, BuG includes non-governmental actors such as NGOs, grassroots collectives, and local enterprises that foster innovation within specific contexts. Hybrid models increasingly recognize intermediaries that bridge both approaches [13,14]. In summary, BuG aligns with non-hierarchical models like networks and represents a gradual shift in governance. It incorporates soft mechanisms and expands the range of involved actors, emphasizing local processes and community-driven innovation.

2.2. Understanding of BuG in Relation to Energy Consumption Behavior (ECB)

Energy consumption refers to the demand for services that improve well-being, such as heating, cooling, lighting, and appliance use, powered by electricity, natural gas, or petroleum [8,17]. Energy consumption behavior includes the actions and decisions of individuals, households, and organizations that affect energy use, such as buying energy-efficient appliances, adopting energy-saving habits, and installing renewable energy systems, such as buying energy-efficient appliances or adopting routines that reduce consumption, including energy-saving habits and renewable technologies [2,19,20].

Factors influencing behavior are both individual and contextual. Individual factors include sociodemographic traits (age, income, education, household size), psychological characteristics (values, attitudes, norms, habits), and behavior patterns. Contextual factors relate to technology (infrastructure, availability), economics (prices), and policy or social dynamics [12,21].

However, influencing these behaviors is challenging. Because individual factors often manifest privately, they are harder to influence through conventional policy [21]. Traditional command-and-control strategies tend to have limited effectiveness [14]. Moreover, since many energy behaviors are habitual, one-time interventions rarely succeed in shifting established routines [22]. Thus, governance strategies must address both individual behaviors and structural factors [23]. This integrated perspective is crucial for understanding decision making at the grassroots level [14,17,18].

Changing energy consumption behavior means altering daily routines and decisions to reduce energy use and support sustainable sources [19,24]. This requires understanding how various factors interact in designing interventions that reflect this complexity [2,23,25]. Research supports bottom–up governance as a key enabler of household-level change. These micro-level shifts are fundamental to achieving broader energy transitions. However, understanding how bottom–up dynamics interact with top–down governance structures remains essential to designing coherent and effective policy frameworks [26,27].

2.3. Facilitating Energy Consumption Behavior Change Through Governance Approaches

Bottom–up governance approaches are increasingly recognized as essential complements to top–down energy policies, particularly for advancing sustainable transitions by shaping consumption behaviors [17,27]. In this context, policy, polity, and politics illustrate how governance structures and social systems influence energy use, regulation, and management [19,28].

Policy comprises formal rules and guidelines created by governments or institutions to steer behavior [29,30]. Top–down policies include efficiency standards, carbon pricing, subsidies, and renewable targets [2,31]. In contrast, bottom–up strategies promote community-based programs that involve local actors in energy-saving actions, encouraging voluntary norms and grassroots engagement [32,33]. Tools like crowdsourced solutions and knowledge-sharing networks empower local stakeholders to pursue sustainability and foster innovation [4,34], as shown in Figure 1.

Polity refers to institutional configurations and how power is distributed within them [35,36]. Centralized polities, such as national energy utilities, can restrict flexibility and limit participation [3,37,38]. On the other hand, bottom–up structures, like community cooperatives, promote inclusivity, shared ownership, and legitimacy, increasing responsiveness to local needs [39,40]. Decentralized systems that strengthen local governments and organizations enable more participatory and context-aware governance [11].

Politics capture the dynamics of power, interests, and values in shaping decisions [13,41]. Top–down politics often reflect dominant industry interests, leading to biased policies [3,42]. In contrast, bottom–up political action, such as grassroots advocacy and citizen initiatives, empowers communities to influence energy decisions [3,43]. From climate strikes to consumer activism, citizen engagement can trigger reforms and drive corporate sustainability efforts [44,45].

In summary, both governance approaches are crucial for transforming energy consumption behavior. Top–down strategies provide systemic direction and infrastructure but often lack direct influence on individual action. Bottom–up initiatives, although localized, enhance engagement and accountability, compensating for the limitations of institutional scale.

A successful energy transition requires integrating both. Top–down policies deliver infrastructure and incentives, while bottom–up efforts drive behavioral change at the micro level. Together, as depicted in Figure 1, these approaches offer a holistic framework for advancing sustainable energy consumption.

2.4. Hybrid Governance in Energy Consumption and Decision Making in a Developing Country

Combining top–down and bottom–up approaches enables a more inclusive and effective energy governance framework, supporting equitable and sustainable transitions [1,2]. Top–down policies provide regulatory and financial structures that facilitate change [5], while bottom–up initiatives ensure that solutions are locally adapted, fostering grassroots innovation, collective action, and community ownership [2,3]. Involving local stakeholders enhances buy-in and ensures that solutions fit specific contexts [1,4]. Bottom–up governance includes support for community-led projects, knowledge-sharing networks, local institutions, and grassroots advocacy or consumer movements [2,46,47].

In developing countries, where top–down approaches have historically dominated [6], several actions can encourage a shift toward bottom–up governance. As shown in Figure 2, a balanced integration of inputs such as policies, education, and access to technologies can shape behavior and outcomes through hybrid approaches. The following actions are key to enabling this transformation:

• First, the current energy system must be evaluated and optimized for greater efficiency [9]. In certain instances, significant restructuring may be required to achieve this [47]. Debates around decentralizing the electricity system and the hydrocarbon value chain are essential for advancing distributed generation and bottom–up governance [48]. This could include unbundling and privatizing state-owned utilities, establishing independent regulatory bodies, and revising tariffs to encourage efficiency and renewable energy adoption [49,50]. Promoting efficient residential energy use is also key. Existing policies and programs should be reviewed to address gaps and better reflect household needs [34,51,52].
• Simultaneously, efforts must strengthen the capacity of local authorities, community organizations, and civil society to play an active role in energy governance [47]. This includes training programs, resource access, knowledge-sharing platforms, and mechanisms that support meaningful participation in policy design and implementation [10].
• Policies and regulations must support community-based energy initiatives and decentralized solutions [7,39]. Supporting cooperatives, efficiency programs, and renewable energy projects fosters participation and local ownership [43,53]. These initiatives enable households and communities to manage their energy needs and develop innovative, context-specific solutions [54]. Key measures include financial incentives and tariffs to attract investment, along with funding, technical support, and regulatory sandboxes to foster experimentation [7,43,55]. Additionally, streamlining administrative processes and reducing regulatory barriers are essential for facilitating the adoption of distributed energy technologies [49].
• Public engagement campaigns should encourage active community involvement in the energy transition [46,47,56]. Educational initiatives, public forums, and digital platforms can support dialogue, experience sharing, and feedback on energy issues [2,40,57]. Demonstration projects can further help households understand the benefits of sustainable energy practices and make informed decisions [2,11].
• Investment in research and data collection is vital for understanding the socio-cultural, economic, and behavioral factors that influence household energy choices. Targeted studies, pilot projects, and participatory efforts can identify key drivers and inform tailored strategies promoting sustainable behaviors [2,25]. These findings should guide the design of policies suited to the specific needs of diverse communities.

The scheme outlines a comprehensive approach to energy transition in developing countries, highlighting how inputs such as policies, clean technologies, education, economic incentives, and research shape energy consumption behavior. Through targeted measures, developing countries can advance toward more inclusive, community-led energy governance. Public engagement will strengthen local ownership of the transition, drawing on household knowledge and initiative to promote more sustainable and equitable outcomes.

3. Methodology: Mixed Top–Down and Bottom–Up Governance

This study incorporates a strong theoretical component that underscores the importance of hybrid governance in energy transitions. By combining top–down (TD) and bottom–up (BU) strategies, it acknowledges that Ecuador’s energy shift requires firm national direction alongside active local participation. This blended model enhances the efficiency and adaptability of energy policies, especially in contexts with centralized systems. Rooted in the hybrid governance framework, the methodology draws on key contributions in the field and promotes inclusivity and flexibility in policymaking. Vanegas Cantarero [6] highlights the need to merge approaches in developing countries with centralized structures. Likewise, research supports community participation and decentralized governance to enhance policy legitimacy and sustainability [7,8].

The first phase focused on establishing a robust theoretical foundation to define the hybrid governance model. The TD component shaped regulatory frameworks and national policies, ensuring coherence and resource allocation for long-term sustainability [47,50]. Meanwhile, the BU component encouraged local involvement and community-led solutions, allowing systems to respond to specific needs. This dual approach has improved acceptance and engagement, generating context-sensitive, sustainable outcomes [58].

The practical strengths of hybrid governance are further emphasized by studies such as that by Koirala et al. [40], who examined energy communities in decentralized settings, where local actors manage both energy use and generation, fostering accountability. Sovacool [5] and Hoppe and Miedema [35] advocate for multi-level governance to address energy transition complexities, emphasizing local roles in implementation. Integrating public engagement with state support aligns with economic and environmental goals, producing synergies between policy and grassroots initiatives [1,2]. Figure 3 outlines the research methodology across five stages.

In the second phase, a bibliometric analysis was conducted in two stages. The first used the term “bottom–up approach” in the Scopus database, retrieving 305 papers (2004–2025). This broad search covered diverse research on participatory methods, decentralized strategies, and collective decision making across disciplines. The second stage refined the focus using “bottom–up governance”, targeting decentralized governance within energy systems. This yielded a more precise view of BU strategies in energy transitions and identified two particularly relevant studies [13,14]. The shift from a general to a focused conceptual lens reflects a deliberate methodological refinement, ensuring that selected literature aligns with the study’s core focus on energy governance.

The bibliometric analysis was instrumental in identifying the core principles of bottom–up governance, participatory planning, local ownership, and institutional adaptability, which informed each phase of the roadmap. The selected studies provided conceptual grounding for designing the transition from centralized control (Phase 1) to full decentralization (Phase 3), ensuring an evidence-based and context-sensitive framework.

The importance of hybrid governance is reinforced by Dobravec et al. [58], who stress the role of local energy planning as central to multi-level governance. Decentralization, they argue, enables solutions tailored to local needs, enhancing resilience and adaptability. This view supports the combination of stable national frameworks with locally driven innovation to achieve inclusive, sustainable energy transitions.

In the third phase, this study examined key stakeholders and their visions for Ecuador’s energy transition, offering insight into its predominantly top–down governance. The analysis identified current political and structural dynamics across policy, politics, and polity dimensions. It focused on the electricity and hydrocarbon sectors, revealing challenges including dependence on fossil fuel subsidies, regulatory inflexibility, and limited local participation in decision making. Ecuador’s energy system remains highly centralized, especially in the transport sector, where fossil fuel consumption dominates, and national authorities oversee the full value chain down to final consumers. This methodological step enabled a nuanced understanding of the transition pathway toward decentralized governance within Ecuador’s institutional context. In the fourth phase, this study proposes a gradual strategy in a Three-Phase Roadmap for Ecuador’s Energy System Transition. This roadmap integrates insights from the bibliometric review, stakeholder input, and governance analysis, as follows:

Phase 1: Hybrid Transition (Short-Term)—Ecuador’s energy system begins to integrate participatory elements within a centralized framework. Strategic inclusion of bottom–up strategies enhances responsiveness, flexibility, and resilience.

Phase 2: Decentralization (Mid-Term)—Marks a gradual shift towards decentralization, balancing national oversight with increased local and private sector participation, fostering a more adaptive and innovative energy landscape.

Phase 3: Full Bottom–Up Model (Long-Term)—The system transitions into a fully decentralized structure where energy consumers play a central role in governance. This phase maximizes local autonomy and innovation, supporting sustainable and adaptive energy management.

A comparative analysis of the three phases illustrates Ecuador’s energy transition and its broader implications. In Phase 1, addressing regulatory barriers is essential to incorporate local strategies within a centralized framework. In Phase 2, financial challenges must be addressed, such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and attracting investment in renewables. In Phase 3, fostering social acceptance and community empowerment is key to enabling autonomous local energy management.

The analysis is enriched through a comparative discussion with Colombia and Chile. Both are gradually adopting hybrid governance models, offering relevant regional insights. This comparison enhances contextual understanding while reinforcing the methodological design by showing how similar transitions are managed in Latin America.

Overall, the analysis provides critical insights into governance evolution, highlighting the capacity of hybrid models to deliver immediate policy effectiveness while paving the way for long-term decentralization. The proposed roadmap is technically robust, socially inclusive, and politically grounded. Aligning empirical findings with Ecuador’s institutional context ensures that the shift toward decentralized energy governance is both practical and sustainable, supporting national sovereignty and long-term energy resilience.

4. Results: A Systemic Approach to Ecuador’s Energy Transition

4.1. Trends, Gaps, and Rationale in Research

A bibliometric analysis was conducted using a Scopus search (2004–2024) based on a co-occurrence analysis of all keywords, applying the following search equation:

(“Bottom–up approach”) AND (“energy consumption behavior” OR “household energy use” OR “energy demand”)

(1)

The selected terms are justified as follows: “Bottom–up approach” is a multidisciplinary concept applied across fields such as energy, public policy, innovation, environmental management, education, and urban planning. “Energy consumption behavior” explores individual decision making in energy use, incorporating psychological, social, and economic dimensions. “Household energy use” focuses specifically on residential consumption, a central aspect of this study. In contrast, “energy demand” typically refers to technical or economic analyses of consumption, capturing both behavioral and aggregate patterns. The results show that “bottom–up approach” has the broadest scope, with 305 papers identified. A minimum threshold of 15 occurrences was set, resulting in 101 qualifying terms, grouped into four clusters, as shown in Figure 4.

Cluster 1 (Energy Policies and Carbon Emissions Control): This cluster includes terms such as “energy policy”, “climate change”, “carbon emissions”, “emission control”, “environmental policy”, and “China”. It reflects the link between energy policies and climate mitigation strategies. Its strong connection with “top–down approach” suggests that these studies explore the interplay between centralized and decentralized governance.

Cluster 2 (Energy Use and Consumption Modelling): Key terms include “energy utilization”, “buildings”, “residential energy”, “energy conservation”, and “heating”. This cluster focuses on building energy efficiency and residential energy modelling, with “bottom–up modelling” indicating the use of computational tools for detailed analysis.

Cluster 3 (Energy Efficiency and Management): Terms such as “energy efficiency”, “energy management”, “demand-side management”, “forecasting”, and “electric power utilization” appear here. It relates to improving energy use and managing demand, applying bottom–up strategies in planning and optimization.

Cluster 4 (Sustainability): Terms such as “energy efficiency”, “energy management”, “demand-side management”, “forecasting”, and “electric power utilization” appear here. It relates to improving energy use and managing demand, applying bottom–up strategies in planning and optimization.

The network analysis reveals that “bottom–up approach” is a central and highly connected term, highlighting its broad relevance across research domains. The prevalence of participatory and decentralized models reinforces this. Based on these findings, the term “bottom–up governance” is proposed to refine the bibliometric search, with a focus on governance-specific frameworks. This shift significantly narrows the literature, moving from a general concept to one grounded in political and administrative structures.

“Bottom–up governance” refines the bibliometric scope to two key studies [13,14]. This term introduces a more specific governance focus, encompassing the policy–polity–politics triad, an essential dimension for analyzing energy decision making aimed at a lasting systemic transformation. The analysis shows that not all research on bottom–up approaches adopts a governance lens. While this refined search yields fewer articles, the results are more relevant for examining decision-making structures in energy consumption from political and administrative perspectives. The bibliometric analysis identifies nine terms that meet this criterion, forming two thematic clusters, illustrated in Figure 5.

Cluster 1 (Psychological and Social Factors): Includes terms such as “renewable energy developments”, “community acceptance”, “collective psychological ownership”, and “place-technology fit”. It explores the intersection of renewable energy implementation and community perceptions. The strong link to the “top–down approach” suggests a focus on how collective ownership perceptions affect acceptance of externally imposed projects, consistent with findings from Međugorac and Schuitema [13].

Cluster 2 (Energy Consumption Behavior Change): Comprising terms like “energy consumption”, “behavior change”, and “best practice governance design”, this cluster centers on household-level energy behavior and effective policy design. The presence of “bottom–up governance” reflects an emphasis on decentralized strategies that promote citizen engagement, as discussed in Sohre and Schubert [14].

Consequently, bottom–up governance emerges as a central concept in the network, reflecting a growing recognition in the literature of the interplay between top–down and bottom–up approaches, rather than treating them as mutually exclusive. Promoting social acceptance and behavioral change in energy use requires blending participatory strategies with centralized regulation. The connection between the two clusters suggests that a hybrid governance model may be more effective in managing the energy transition—an essential focus of this study.

Emphasizing governance over a purely bottom–up perspective provides a broader analytical lens, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of decision-making systems, involved actors, and power dynamics in energy contexts. Governance covers the interactions between governmental and non-governmental actors, regulatory frameworks, and public policies. While the bottom–up approach highlights local participation and grassroots decision making, governance encompasses cross-level interactions, implementation strategies, and oversight mechanisms. Shifting the focus to governance thus enhances conceptual clarity and supports a more integrated analysis of decision-making systems and behavioral shifts in energy consumption.

4.2. Current Energy Landscape and Governance Model for Ecuador

Ecuador’s energy matrix remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels, despite ongoing efforts to diversify its energy sources [59]. Electricity and fuel oil dominate secondary energy production, underscoring the country’s dependence on traditional energy forms. This sustained reliance on hydrocarbons presents major challenges as Ecuador seeks to transition toward more sustainable and renewable options.

In 2023, diesel oil represented the largest share of energy consumption by fuel type at 32.5%, followed by gasoline at 27.5%. Electricity accounted for 18.1%, and liquefied gas for 10.5%. Other sources such as fuel oil (3.0%), wood (1.4%), jet fuel (1.2%), petroleum coke (1.2%), natural gas (0.2%), and sugarcane-derived products (1.3%) played smaller roles. Non-energy uses represented 1.5%, while miscellaneous sources accounted for 0.6% of the total consumption [60].

Consumption patterns further emphasize this dependence on fossil fuels. In 2023, the transportation sector alone accounted for 51.9% of the total secondary energy use, remaining the dominant consumer. The industrial sector followed with 16.6%, and the residential sector with 13.5%. Commercial, agricultural, fishing, and mining activities combined represented 7.2%, while other sectors made up the remaining 6.6% [60].

Despite certain advances, Ecuador remains heavily reliant on two primary energy markets: liquid fuels and electricity. Both sectors, from production to distribution, are state-controlled, reinforcing centralization and limiting the involvement of private, community-based, or alternative actors. Non-conventional sources, such as wind, solar, biogas, and biomass, barely exceeded 0.5% of the total primary energy supply in 2023 [60], exposing a structural weakness. This limited diversification heightens vulnerability due to the country’s heavy dependence on both hydropower and fossil fuels. A clear example of this fragility was the prolonged power outages, up to 8 h daily, during the dry seasons of 2023 and 2024.

Given this context, it is essential to design and implement comprehensive policies that not only promote non-conventional renewables and diversify the matrix but also drive structural changes in production and consumption models.

Ecuador’s energy governance follows a top–down model, where policies, politics, and polity shape decision making and implementation, as shown in Figure 6. At the top, instruments such as the Constitution, Organic Laws, and executive decrees define the legal framework for the energy sector. Politics are driven by national authorities, particularly the Presidency and the Ministry of Energy and Mines, which oversee planning and political leadership.

The polity is represented by regulatory bodies like the Regulation and Control Agency for Non-Renewable Natural Resources (ARCERNNR), tasked with ensuring compliance and regulatory oversight. This structure flows from higher-level entities to operational actors. Operationally, EP Petroecuador manages oil and gas, while CENACE, CELEC EP, and CNEL EP oversee electricity generation and distribution. Consequently, decision making filters down from centralized institutions to the final consumer, reinforcing a hierarchical structure. This model highlights how the interplay among policy, politics, and polity creates a tightly structured and state-led approach to energy governance in Ecuador.

Ecuador’s energy landscape, defined by a top–down governance model, remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, with the transportation sector accounting for much of the demand. This centralized structure directs decision making from national policy levels to end users. Transitioning to a bottom–up approach, initially through hybrid governance, can gradually reduce dependence on fossil fuels and hydropower, while empowering local actors and supporting sustainable energy solutions.

4.3. Multi-Stakeholder Insights on Ecuador’s Energy Transition

Although Ecuador’s energy landscape is defined by a hierarchical structure and strong reliance on hydrocarbons, academic studies have identified key challenges and opportunities for shifting toward more decentralized and collaborative models. In this context, a bibliometric analysis was conducted using Scopus based on co-occurrence analysis of titles, abstracts, and keywords. The applied search equation yielded 16 articles published between 2018 and 2025.

(“energy sector” OR “energy transition” OR “energy policy” OR “energy system”) AND (“stakeholder” OR “actor” OR “agent” OR “entity” OR “participant” OR “player”) AND (“Ecuador”)

(2)

Table 1. Smart chart: stakeholder analysis in Ecuador’s energy transition.

Authors	Context	Area	Stakeholder
			Government Actors	Private Sector	Community	Academia	Financial
Villamarín-Jácome et al. [61]	Renewable energy and storage for low-carbon emissions in hydro-dominated systems	Energy	X
Borja & Davidsen [62]	Clientelism in Amazon oil benefit sharing	Environmental Science, Social Sciences	X	X	X
Lang [63]	Decolonizing energy transition	Environmental Science, Social Sciences		X	X		X
Moya et al. [64]	Long-term sustainable energy transition in Ecuador’s residential sector	Energy, Environmental Science, Engineering	X	X		X
Buenaño et al. [65]	CO2 emissions in Ecuador’s service sectors	Economics, Econometrics, and Finance	X	X		X
Pulla-Galindo et al. [66]	Energy sector and public lighting	Engineering	X	X	X	X	X
Barragán-Escandón et al. [67]	Barriers to renewable energy expansion in Ecuador	Energy	X	X		X	X
Mendieta-Vicuña & Esparcia [68]	Hydropower and sustainable development	Environmental Science, Social Sciences	X	X	X	X	X
Pulla-Galindo et al. [69]	Public lighting energy sector in Ecuador	Energy, Environmental Science	X	X	X		X
Ariza-Montobbio & Herrero-Olarte [70]	Socio-metabolic profiles of electricity consumption in Ecuador	Environmental Science, Social Sciences	X	X	X	X	X
Mendieta-Vicuña & Esparcia [71]	Wind energy policy in Loja	Social Sciences	X	X	X	X
Gould et al. [72]	Household fuel mixes in Ecuador	Energy, Environmental Science	X	X	X	X
Teräväinen [73]	Water and technology conflicts in Coca Codo Sinclair	Environmental Science, Social Sciences	X	X	X	X
Fontaine et al. [74]	Policy mixes against oil dependence	Energy, Social Sciences	X			X
Valverde-Landivar & Leon-Veas [75]	Smart Grid intelligence in Ecuador	Energy, Engineering	X	X		X	X
Noboa et al. [76]	Collaborative energy planning under illiberal democracy	Energy, Social Sciences	X	X	X		X

Source: authors’ elaboration based on Scopus data. Summary of bibliometric analysis based on keyword co-occurrence in Scopus (2018–2025).

presents stakeholder classifications from the reviewed articles, grouped into five categories: Government Actors, Private Sector, Community and Civil Society, Academia and Research Centers, and Financial and Cooperation Agencies.

Incorporating decentralized and collaborative perspectives helps mitigate limitations of the centralized model by promoting local development and broadening stakeholder engagement in energy planning. Four seminal studies are particularly relevant: Mendieta-Vicuña and Esparcia [71] identify local development as central to a more equitable transition, while Ariza-Montobbio and Herrero-Olarte [70] emphasize the value of socio-metabolic profiles and energy sovereignty in connecting communities and authorities. Gould et al. [72] and Noboa et al. [76] further explore consumption patterns, policy impacts in peri-urban and rural areas, and the role of NGOs and community leaders in less liberal governance settings. Together, these studies suggest that decentralized, collaborative models not only strengthen participation but also enable context-specific solutions that build more resilient and sustainable energy systems.

4.4. A Gradual Transition: A Three-Phase Roadmap for Ecuador’s Energy System Transition

Given the complexity of transitioning from a top–down to a bottom–up energy system, a three-phase approach offers a structured and gradual path. This strategy enables the careful integration of new policies, governance frameworks, and technologies, minimizing risks and fostering learning throughout the process. The phases are outlined as follows:

4.4.1. Phase 1: Hybrid Transition (Short-Term)

Integrating bottom–up strategies within a centralized energy governance framework allows local entities to engage in energy management while maintaining centralized oversight (see Figure 7). This balance supports system stability and gradual policy implementation [7,35], though it also presents coordination challenges. Effective communication channels and collaborative platforms are essential for an effective interaction across governance levels [58,77]. Resource allocation must be planned to avoid disparities between central and local initiatives [58]. Despite increasing local involvement, centralized control over critical infrastructure and decision making remains vital for ensuring stability during the transition [78,79].

A clear policy framework is necessary to define central and local roles, fostering coherence in planning [58]. Simultaneously, regulatory mechanisms should ensure that local initiatives align with national standards and integrate into the broader system [79]. Pilot programs, especially community-based energy projects, offer valuable testing grounds for localized solutions and provide data to inform broader implementation [53].

Capacity building is also critical. Investments in training and resources equip communities with technical and managerial skills, strengthening local leadership and governance [58]. Public engagement through awareness campaigns and workshops promotes understanding of renewable energy benefits and encourages stakeholder participation [8,80]. This integrated approach, combining policy clarity, pilot projects, local capacity building, and public engagement, empowers communities while preserving centralized oversight. Figure 7 illustrates Ecuador’s energy system structure across four levels, from national policymaking to end-user engagement, clarifying each actor’s role and interactions.

The energy system can be structured into four interconnected levels. Level 1: National Policies and Oversight involves institutions responsible for planning and regulation, ensuring system compliance and stability. Public input is gathered through forums and consultations to integrate citizen perspectives into policymaking. Level 2: Centralized Energy System Actors includes institutions managing fossil fuel and electricity systems, ensuring national distribution and coordination. Level 3: Decentralized Actors and Local Management covers regional and local entities, such as subnational governments and energy cooperatives, implementing renewable and distributed projects that align with national strategies. Level 4: Final Consumer (Bottom Level) refers to end users, who are increasingly active through feedback and small-scale renewable generation integrated into the system.

This framework reflects Ecuador’s transition to a more participatory and flexible energy model. Integrating bottom–up strategies within a centralized structure enhances responsiveness, supports context-specific solutions, and strengthens resilience. This hybrid approach fosters stakeholder engagement and aligns local actions with national objectives, contributing to a more sustainable energy transition.

4.4.2. Phase 2: Decentralization (Mid-Term)

The transition to a sustainable and resilient energy system requires both technological innovation and structural changes in governance, as illustrated in Figure 8. Legislative reforms are crucial for decentralizing energy governance, equipping local authorities with the tools needed to design and implement community-specific programs [7]. This shift enables local actors to actively engage in planning, promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration [8,48].

Financial incentives like subsidies and grants are vital to stimulate investment in sustainable energy, attract private capital, and expand local renewable markets [81]. However, these must be accompanied by the gradual removal of fossil fuel subsidies, which distort markets and hinder the renewable shift [2,82,83]. Ecuador’s long-standing subsidies, introduced in 1974, have created inefficiencies over time [84]. In 2021, the country imported 56,898 thousand barrels of petroleum derivatives, with diesel at 41.8%, gasoline at 31.5%, and LPG at 22.5% [85]. Redirecting subsidies to clean alternatives can incentivize private investment and align policies with sustainability goals [2,86]. Community-based funding models and local energy cooperatives also empower stakeholders to support development [3,37].

Integrating decentralized renewables requires substantial technological investment [87]. Distributed generation methods, such as rooftop solar and community wind, allow communities to participate in both energy production and consumption [53]. Smart grids and microgrids provide flexibility, operating independently or in larger networks [79,88]. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks are essential to assess impacts and ensure compliance with national standards [2,25]. In conclusion, these strategies lay the foundation for Ecuador’s transition toward decentralized energy governance. The next section presents a graphic outlining a potential decentralization pathway.

The governance structure for Phase 2 of Ecuador’s energy transition starts at Level 1 with national oversight, where entities like the Presidency and the Ministry of Energy and Mines lead strategic decision making and sectoral planning. These institutions set the policies and frameworks for the sector’s transformation. Level 2 focuses on regulatory and control functions, ensuring the implementation of national policies by energy actors. Key groups at this level include state companies (e.g., national gas, oil, and electricity entities), decentralized actors (e.g., local governments and energy cooperatives), and private companies, particularly in distributed generation. Each plays a role in energy production, distribution, and local implementation. Level 3 involves final energy consumers, who receive services from both centralized and decentralized sources, meeting needs while supporting national sustainability goals.

This structure illustrates Ecuador’s gradual transition toward decentralization, balancing centralized oversight with local participation and private sector innovation, fostering a more resilient, flexible energy system.

4.4.3. Phase 3: Full Bottom–Up Model (Long-Term)

The Full Bottom–Up Model represents the final stage of a decentralized energy system, where local leadership is central to governance and innovation, as shown in Figure 9. Empowered communities drive the design and implementation of energy solutions tailored to their contexts, ensuring that regional needs shape future energy management [39,48]. As Algarvio [89] demonstrates, integrating local citizen energy communities promotes decentralization and strengthens system resilience and adaptability.

This model emphasizes the adoption of renewable energy, reducing fossil fuel reliance and enhancing resilience. Supportive policy frameworks are crucial, fostering local innovation and energy efficiency through legislation that supports sustainable development [90]. A continuous evaluation mechanism ensures that the transition remains adaptive, with regular community input guiding policy adjustments and scaling successful initiatives nationwide [6].

This phased approach allows Ecuador to implement structural changes effectively while minimizing disruption. Through these phases, the country can build a more sustainable, resilient energy landscape that empowers local actors and aligns with global energy transition goals.

The final model for Ecuador’s Phase 3 energy transition presents a fully decentralized, bottom–up system where the consumer is the primary decision maker. Distributed generation systems, microgrids, local governments, and energy cooperatives interact horizontally, reflecting greater autonomy and collaboration, independent of central government mediation. Independent regulatory bodies play an advisory role, while external stakeholders, including financial institutions, NGOs, ESCOs, and citizen energy initiatives, support the system without direct control. This structure fosters energy democratization and strengthens local empowerment, driving sustainability in Ecuador’s energy landscape.

In conclusion, Ecuador faces significant energy challenges, including frequent outages and heavy reliance on fossil fuels, undermining energy security and economic stability. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive governance framework to address energy complexities. By implementing a phased roadmap combining top–down and bottom–up strategies, Ecuador can engage local communities more effectively, enhancing resilience and sustainability.

The findings suggest that governance must consider local needs and socio-political contexts to ensure inclusive policymaking. Empowering local actors, investing in renewables, and advancing energy efficiency are essential for reducing dependence on external sources and mitigating climate impacts. Strengthening collaboration among government bodies, the private sector, and civil society will stabilize energy supply and foster a more equitable system. Through these strategies, Ecuador can progress toward energy sovereignty and a sustainable future.

5. Discussion

5.1. Comparison of Energy Transition Phases and Their Implications for Ecuador

This section compares the distinct phases of Ecuador’s energy transition, focusing on the Hybrid Transition, Decentralization, and Bottom–Up Model to highlight the evolving dynamics of the country’s energy future. The analysis examines key aspects such as public policy, political dynamics, financing, infrastructure, and citizen participation, emphasizing the crucial steps Ecuador must take at each stage to address the complexities of the transition, as summarized in

Table 2. Challenges for Ecuador in energy transition.

	Phase 1: Hybrid Transition	Phase 2: Decentralization	Phase 3: Bottom–Up Model	Implications for Ecuador
Policy	Mixed policy framework with centralized governance and local strategies [7].	Legislative reforms granting greater autonomy to local entities [8,48].	Supportive legislation for decentralized management with local innovation [7,20].	Regulatory updates are required to facilitate progressive decentralization.
Politics (Dynamics)	Gradual implementation of pilot projects and collaborative platforms [58].	Design of local programs with diversified financing [3,37].	Participatory management with a regionalized focus and long-term sustainability [6].	A flexible model is necessary to allow progressive evolution towards local autonomy.
Polity (Structure)	Limited integration of local actors with centralized supervision [79].	Increased community involvement in energy decision making [81].	Community leadership in designing and implementing energy solutions [39,89].	Strengthening education and capacity-building for local actors is essential.
Financing	Mixed investments with limited subsidies and state financing [58].	Gradual elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, incentives for renewables [82].	Decentralized mechanisms such as energy cooperatives and community funds [37].	Redirecting subsidies to renewable energy is crucial to accelerating the transition.
Infrastructure	Centralized control over critical infrastructure is maintained [78].	Implementation of microgrids and distributed generation with technological support [87].	Local infrastructure independence with smart grids and energy storage [88].	Investing in decentralized management technologies is key.
Regulations	Strict state supervision with centralized regulations [79].	Adaptive regulation with incentives for clean energy [2].	Flexible regulatory frameworks emphasizing community control [3].	Designing regulatory frameworks that balance control and autonomy is needed.
Impact on Consumers	Passive participation with limited benefits in renewable energy [80].	Increasing role as prosumers with access to decentralized technologies [53].	Total autonomy in community energy generation and management [90].	An educational and awareness process is required to facilitate the transition.
Skills	Basic training initiatives to support pilot projects [58].	Strengthening local technical and managerial skills for energy governance [3].	Continuous education programs for communities to lead energy projects [39].	Investment in education and skill development is necessary for long-term sustainability.
Citizen Participation	Initial awareness campaigns to foster engagement [8].	Collaborative decision-making mechanisms involving local actors [48].	Full empowerment of communities in energy governance [6].	Policies should actively promote citizen involvement in the energy transition.
Innovation and Technology	Introduction of smart energy solutions with limited deployment [87].	Expansion of smart grids and digital energy management tools [88].	Full integration of advanced digital platforms for decentralized control [37].	Enhancing innovative ecosystems is key to achieving energy sovereignty.
Environmental Impact	Initial efforts to reduce emissions with renewable pilot projects [2].	Larger-scale adoption of clean energy sources to reduce fossil fuel dependency [81].	Near-zero carbon footprint with full reliance on renewables [90].	Environmental policies should align with global sustainability commitments.

Source: authors’ own elaboration. Summary of key aspects and implications of energy transition phases in Ecuador.

.

5.2. Key Barriers and Challenges in Ecuador’s Energy Transition Phases

As Ecuador advances toward a sustainable energy transition, it must confront key challenges at each phase. These include regulatory, financial, and social acceptance issues, all requiring adaptive solutions and strategic planning.

In Phase 1: Hybrid Transition, regulatory barriers arise from the integration of decentralized strategies within a traditionally centralized system. Legislative reforms are needed to enable local participation while maintaining central oversight to ensure stability. Modernizing the regulatory framework will support a more flexible model that incorporates local actors without compromising national coordination [7,35].

In Phase 2: Decentralization, Decentralization, financial challenges become more pronounced. The transition requires the gradual removal of fossil fuel subsidies and the reallocation of resources toward renewable energy. Ecuador can address this by promoting sustainable financing mechanisms, such as community funds and energy cooperatives, as noted in Table 2 [81,82]. Financial incentives, including grants and targeted subsidies, are crucial for attracting private investment and fostering local renewable energy markets [2,8]. Redirecting subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables will be essential to support long-term sustainability [83].

Finally, in Phase 3: Fully Bottom–Up Model, social acceptance and local community empowerment are critical for ensuring that energy projects are sustainable and supported. Ecuador should implement policies that promote citizen participation and continuous capacity-building programs to help communities manage energy projects autonomously [6].

Empowering local actors fosters transparency, accountability, and collaboration [48], which are essential for ensuring the success of energy projects. Algarvio [89] emphasizes that robust civic engagement not only helps reduce energy costs but also accelerates the integration of renewable energy, reinforcing the transition toward a decentralized, carbon-neutral system. Moreover, García-Fernández and Peek [91] argue that incorporating climate adaptation into smart city frameworks enhances urban resilience and deepens citizen involvement, further validating the importance of a bottom–up approach for sustainable energy transitions.

In conclusion, by addressing the challenges across these phases, Ecuador can build a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable energy system. Each phase plays a vital role in advancing a locally adapted energy model, ensuring that the country moves toward a sustainable energy future [53,90].

5.3. Signs of Hybrid Energy Governance in Chile and Colombia

The complex challenges faced by the energy sector demand innovative governance approaches to ensure energy security, promote sustainability, and foster social equity. Hybrid energy governance, which combines state regulation, market mechanisms, and citizen participation, has emerged as a promising strategy to address these issues [92,93]. Chile and Colombia are progressing toward hybrid governance models, enabling them to confront shared regional challenges such as the need to diversify energy matrices [94]. Diversification is key to avoiding crises like the ongoing blackouts in Ecuador, where over-reliance on a single energy source has created systemic vulnerabilities with economic, social, and environmental consequences.

Chile has set ambitious energy goals with favorable regulatory policies and incentives, encouraging public–private partnerships to expand renewable investment and modernize energy infrastructure. These efforts have attracted significant private capital, increasing the share of renewables in the electricity mix [95]. This synergy has promoted energy diversification, reduced carbon emissions, and supported local economic development.

In Colombia, while still in an early phase, initiatives aim to foster collaboration among government agencies, private firms, and research institutions to diversify the energy mix. This is critical for transforming the system, improving energy management and distribution, and enabling regional electricity trade [96]. Regulatory frameworks and incentives, including tax exemptions, regulated tariffs, and energy auctions, have been introduced to reduce fossil fuel dependence and mitigate emissions [97].

These transformations highlight the potential of hybrid governance models to tackle structural sectoral challenges. However, achieving lasting change requires stronger institutional and societal commitment. Governance design must be adapted to each country’s specific socio-political, economic, and environmental conditions [98]. Balancing centralized and decentralized systems is crucial, especially in urban centers where full decentralization can be difficult and costly [78]. Hybrid models provide a practical solution by combining localized energy solutions with centralized infrastructure for system stability and broad access [8].

Ecuador’s current governance has largely focused on supply-side issues, leaving demand-side concerns unaddressed [99]. Hybrid governance must also promote responsible consumption, reduce demand, and guarantee equitable access [58]. Incorporating energy sufficiency, which limits consumption to sustainable levels, alongside energy efficiency, strengthens the governance framework [100]. Demand-side policies, including efficiency standards, education, and incentives for reduced use, should be integrated into energy strategies for a truly sustainable transition [101].

The energy transition involves various actors facing barriers such as regulatory uncertainty, technical limitations, social resistance, and unequal access to decision making [102]. Key enablers include transparent, participatory policymaking, capacity building at the local level, and institutional stability to foster trust and collaboration.

In Ecuador, a gradual transition to decentralization, starting with hybrid approaches, could reduce dependence on the central state and empower local actors. Decentralized and collaborative perspectives can address limitations, promote territorial development, and expand community participation in energy planning [103,104]. This inclusive strategy supports technological transformation and a more just, resilient, and locally adapted transition focused on collective well-being. This analysis answers the research question by showing how a balanced governance framework, combining top–down and bottom–up strategies, can drive behavioral change in energy consumption within the Ecuadorian context.

6. Conclusions

Governance arrangements related to energy consumption must acknowledge the complexity and inherent political implications involved. Energy consumption should not be viewed merely as a straightforward issue requiring technical solutions; instead, it represents a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by various social, economic, cultural, and political factors, each with significant environmental impacts. Consequently, energy policies, governance frameworks, and practices must be adaptable to changing conditions and contexts, continually monitored, and refined based on feedback and practical experiences.

Moreover, achieving effective energy governance necessitates the active participation of a diverse array of stakeholders—including consumers, businesses, community groups, and government entities—in the decision-making and policy design processes. This collaborative approach not only enhances the relevance and effectiveness of energy strategies but also fosters a more equitable and sustainable energy future for all.

The proposed three-phase framework represents a transformative pathway for Ecuador and similar developing nations to shift from a top–down energy system to a decentralized, community-driven model. Initiating with a hybrid phase that blends bottom–up initiatives while retaining centralized oversight allows Ecuador to experiment with and refine localized energy solutions, ensuring stability during the transition. In Phase 2, the gradual move toward decentralized decision making not only empowers communities but also cultivates local ownership, bolstering renewable energy projects through targeted incentives. Ultimately, Phase 3 envisions a robust bottom–up model where local stakeholders take the lead in governance and innovation, paving the way for a resilient and sustainable energy ecosystem. This structured, phased approach is not just adaptable; it is essential for navigating the unique challenges faced by developing countries, facilitating a smoother journey toward a sustainable and equitable energy future. By embracing this comprehensive strategy, Ecuador can become a beacon of energy transition, demonstrating that sustainability and community engagement can coexist and thrive.

Ultimately, by recognizing and addressing these complexities, Ecuador can pave the way for a robust energy transition that prioritizes sustainability and community engagement. Inaction risks perpetuating energy crises, undermining the nation’s potential for self-sufficiency and sustainable development. Therefore, immediate and inclusive action is essential to transform Ecuador’s energy landscape into one that benefits all citizens and secures a resilient future.

These conclusions address this central research question: how can a balanced governance framework foster sustainable ECB in Ecuador? The findings emphasize four key aspects: (1) recognizing the complexity of energy consumption, which extends beyond technical solutions to encompass social, economic, cultural, and political dimensions; (2) the critical role of multi-stakeholder participation in shaping effective governance structures; (3) the proposed three-phase roadmap as a structured response that facilitates a transition from a centralized to a decentralized energy system; and (4) the potential risks of inaction, which could perpetuate energy crises and hinder sustainable development.