Community Services in Energy Communities: Integrating Economic, Social, and Environmental Indicators for Services Prioritization

Community Services in Energy Communities: Integrating Economic, Social, and Environmental Indicators for Services Prioritization | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Community Services in Energy Communities: Integrating Economic, Social, and Environmental Indicators for Services Prioritization Gabriele Umberto Magni, Ignazio Terrana, Tommaso Gallozzi, Daniele Bricca This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8426281/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) are pivotal not only for advancing the energy transition but also for fostering virtuous and resilient local communities. Their potential goes beyond energy production, as they can serve as hubs for collective well-being and cooperation. However, a significant challenge to their success lies in ensuring sufficient member engagement. The financial benefits provided often fail to offer adequate motivation, as community-level incentives, when available, do not always justify participation. That is why a critical factor in enhancing REC value lies in offering captivating and economically viable community services that strengthen members' engagement while providing indirect remuneration. This study evaluates the feasibility of 5 potential community services, including bike sharing, PV system maintenance, tree planting, capacity building, and energy poverty support. The selection and evaluation of these services were informed by a need assessment based on interviews and questionnaires conducted across 17 RECs in Italy, aiming to reflect the real needs of local social groups. For each service, the annual community-level cost and the avoided individual cost are calculated. The environmental and social benefits are also evaluated, and a set of indicators is identified. This approach leads to a prioritization of services that are economically viable for RECs, taking into account also social and environmental benefits at community level. Among the results, bike sharing emerges as the most suitable service for the REC types considered, albeit with the highest investment cost, while tree planting appears as the most aligned with the needs of communities with a stronger focus on social and environmental values. By emphasizing the environmental, social and economic benefits of well-designed community services, this work highlights their crucial role in boosting member participation and engagement, thereby reinforcing the overall sustainability and attractiveness of RECs. Renewable Energy Communities Community Engagement Incentive Mechanisms Local Resilience Community Services Sustainable Energy Transition Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION Communities, in their various forms, have long played a fundamental role in addressing societal challenges, fostering collaboration, and strengthening social ties. Whether they emerge around shared geographical locations, common interests, or collective goals, communities serve as powerful tools to engage individuals in meaningful ways. Historically, they have been instrumental in solving economic, social, and environmental issues by leveraging collective action and shared resources. The increasing importance of sustainability and local resilience has further underscored the need for innovative community-based initiatives, particularly in the realm of energy transition. Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) represent a promising model that merges community engagement with the transition toward sustainable energy systems. Defined by the European Union’s Clean Energy Package, RECs are legal entities that enable citizens, businesses, and local authorities to collectively produce, consume, store, and sell renewable energy [ 1 ]. They not only contribute to the decarbonization of energy systems but also offer a financial framework that can support local communities through stable incentive mechanisms. However, the availability and structure of such incentives vary across Europe, influencing the effectiveness and attractiveness of RECs [ 2 ]. Italy, in particular, has adopted a legislative framework that provides stable incentives for RECs, most recently defined by Legislative Decree No. 414 of December 7, 2023, also known as the CACER Decree [ 3 ]. Despite these financial incentives, the redistribution of economic benefits across REC members often results in relatively small individual remuneration, making direct financial gains an insufficient motivator for participation. This has led to concerns regarding member engagement and long-term sustainability. A viable alternative to enhance the attractiveness of RECs lies in the strategic reinvestment of community earnings into services that address local needs and create tangible benefits for all members. By utilizing incentive-generated funds to activate community services, RECs can generate additional social and economic value. These services not only solve concrete problems within communities but also serve as a powerful engagement tool, fostering stronger participation and ensuring the long-term viability of RECs. Literature review Several studies have explored methods for the redistribution of incentives within Renewable Energy Communities (RECs)[ 4 ], with a particular focus on fairness and efficiency. Casalicchio et al. have proposed different allocation mechanisms aimed at maximizing both economic benefits and participants' engagement, investigating how redistributive models can influence member behavior and community cohesion [ 5 ], [ 6 ]. These contributions highlight the relevance of incentive design in shaping the long-term sustainability of RECs. In parallel, a growing body of literature has examined the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to evaluate RECs from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives. Bianco et al. introduced a comprehensive set of KPIs to compare energy communities, primarily addressing their technical performance and environmental outcomes [ 7 ]. Similarly, Mutani et al. assessed REC performance through self-consumption and self-sufficiency indexes, complemented by a cost-optimal analysis that considers investment costs and available incentives [ 8 ]. Ceglia et al. emphasized the role of time-dependent indicators in improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions, reporting significant reductions in both primary energy demand and CO₂ emissions [ 9 ]. However, while KPIs have been effectively applied to evaluate internal REC dynamics and environmental impact, they have not yet been explicitly adopted to assess the broader set of community services that a REC could potentially deliver. Looking at communities social contexts, relevant literature consistently emphasizes the multifaceted social dimensions underlying the formation and success of community-led energy projects and, more specifically, of renewable energy communities. Therefore, trust, participation, governance, and equity are all interconnected dimensions that interact to shape project outcomes. Walker and Devine-Wright famously reported the role of collective ownership and inclusive engagement in engendering public support, noting that when local stakeholders perceive real decision-making power and tangible benefits, social acceptance markedly increases [ 10 ]. Thus, social innovation emerges most strongly when embedded in community-led efforts, thereby solidifying grassroots commitment to sustainability objectives [ 11 ]. In the same way, robust communication channels and transparent governance structures are of primary importance, to avoid the risk of eroding trust through perceived forms of inequity [ 12 ]. Following this line of research, other studies underscore the need to recognize diverse social contexts and power relations within communities. Seyfang and Smith highlight how local cultural networks and pre-existing social networks can either foster or impede the consolidation of shared values in the context of what they call “grassroots innovations” [ 13 ]. The consequence for practitioners is therefore to tailor specific engagement strategies to address specific local concerns and aspirations. Sustained interaction with residents, indeed, can help pre-empt conflicts around landscape impacts, financial responsibilities, or questions of community identity [ 14 ]. Bauwens further elaborates on the governance dimension, arguing that participatory frameworks can enhance social cohesion, improve knowledge-sharing, and ensure that economic returns remain within the community [ 15 ]. Van der Schoor and Scholtens go one step further by linking community energy projects to broader societal transitions, positing that localized renewable initiatives have the capacity to influence broader social norms regarding energy use and environmental stewardship [ 16 ]. Other authors similarly stress the empowerment potential inherent in RECs, noting that increased citizen engagement in project design and management can catalyse deeper transformations in consumption patterns and policy advocacy [ 17 ], [ 18 ]. These insights align with research indicating that fostering a sense of ownership and pride in local achievements reinforces collective identity, which in turn motivates sustained participation and shared responsibility [ 10 ]. However, these processes are not devoid of risks of sorts. Juntunen et al. points out that unrealistic expectations or insufficient technical support can precipitate disillusionment [ 19 ], while Wolsink underscores the ongoing challenge of balancing diverse interests and visions within a single community framework [ 14 ]. Equitable benefit-sharing also emerges as a central theme: when communities perceive the distribution of financial returns, jobs, and environmental gains as fair, they are more likely to remain invested in the project over the long term. This notion appears salient in contexts characterized by economic disparities or past instances of marginalization, as transparent governance and equitable risk-and-benefit allocations can serve as key drivers of social stability [ 20 ]. Building on these lines of scholarship, it is fair to assume that social indicators play a critical role in evaluating and guiding RECs, particularly because they capture the often intangible dimensions of participation, trust, cohesion, and empowerment that underpin long-term project viability. For instance, Martin and Upham advocate for measuring both the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of community engagement, such as levels of inclusivity, social cohesion, and perceived agency [ 21 ]. Kunze and Becker likewise stress the importance of tracking trust and shared identity among stakeholders, arguing that these factors directly impact a community’s willingness to coordinate efforts and allocate resources toward collective energy goals [ 22 ]. Building on this perspective, Rogers et al. (2012) propose employing indicators that not only grasp participation rates but also capture shifts in local attitudes over time, suggesting that periodic surveys and focus groups can illuminate evolving perceptions of fairness and transparency [ 23 ]. Despite these significant contributions, however, the debate and research on social indicators regarding RECs remain ongoing, requiring further exploration. Aim of this study This study aims to go beyond the traditional perspective of incentive redistribution within Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), proposing an alternative approach that reimagines incentives not merely as tools for individual economic compensation, but as levers to activate and sustain community services. While existing literature has largely focused on fair and equitable redistribution mechanisms and technical performance indicators, this work explores how incentive-derived revenues can be strategically reinvested to deliver community-oriented services that align with the shared goals and values of RECs. The novelty of the study lies in two main contributions. First, it introduces a framework for evaluating the economic feasibility and strategic coherence of various community services in relation to REC objectives, providing a multidimensional assessment of how incentives can be redirected to maximize collective benefit. Second, it applies performance indicators not to the REC itself—as commonly done—but to the services that a REC can offer, assessing their potential based on real-world data gathered from emerging REC initiatives within a specific territorial context. By grounding the analysis in empirical experiences, the study aims to bridge the gap between theoretical models and practical implementation, ultimately offering new insights into how community services can serve as a tool for fostering community engagement. Italian incentive scheme The economic feasibility analyses of the various services will be assessed in light of the incentive scheme provided by the Italian government. It is therefore essential to briefly introduce the nature of this incentive. The MASE (Ministry of Environment and Energy Security) through the CACER Decree (Configurations for the Self-Consumption and Sharing of Renewable Energy), establishes the incentive mechanisms for electricity produced from renewable sources by plants integrated into self-consumption configurations [ 3 ]. The incentive framework and the premium tariff regulation mechanism are then defined. It has a validity period of 20 years, starting from the date of commercial operation of the plant. The Renewable Energy Community provides incentives for shared energy, which is the minimum between the total energy fed into the grid produced by renewable energy plants and the total energy withdrawn by REC members. There are three types of incentives, which fall within the regulatory framework: shared electricity feed-in-tariff under the Ministerial Decree DM MASE no.414/2023 valorisation of self-consumed electricity by returning the tariff components as provided for in ARERA Resolution 727/2022/R/eel [ 24 ] withdrawal of electricity fed into the grid by the GSE (RID). This incentive in our study will not be taken into consideration because it is directed to the prosumers only, thus it cannot be used for community services financing. For each kWh of incentivised electricity, the GSE pays, for a period of twenty years, a unit fee, defined as a premium rate. For each kWh of self-consumed electricity, the GSE recognises, again for a period of twenty years, a unit fee, defined as an enhancement contribution, relating to the transmission tariff [ 25 ]. The premium tariff is calculated according to the size of the power plant, based on the energy shared within the configuration under the same primary cabin. Geographical context The RECs interviewed, from which valuable insights were gathered for the selection and analysis of community services, are all located within the Lazio Region, with the majority based in the city of Rome. Despite this geographically specific context, their distribution across a variety of urban neighborhoods and rural municipalities provides a representative cross-section of the diverse realities characterising collective self-consumption initiatives throughout Italy. This diversity enables the identification of common needs and challenges that many RECs across the country are currently facing. In the Lazio Region, home to over 5.8 million inhabitants, the city of Rome serves as the demographic and economic center, with about 2.8 million residents and an extensive urban fabric that makes it Italy’s capital. In recent years, Lazio region has seen a gradual increase in installed capacity from renewable energy sources, particularly photovoltaic and, to a lesser extent, biomass and wind, though not yet matching levels seen in other Italian regions with more industrial profiles or greater wind potential. Over the past few years, energy communities have proliferated through pilot projects and experimental initiatives involving neighbourhoods and local associations, especially in Rome’s outskirts and in nearby municipalities. These projects aim to share energy generated by photovoltaic systems through cooperative models or “smart” condominiums, supported by national and regional incentives. Such frameworks can lower energy bills and foster greater environmental awareness among residents. Nevertheless, challenges frequently arise from bureaucratic procedures and constraints tied to historic building preservation. According to the Statistical yearbook of Rome Municipality 2024 [ 26 ], the expansion of renewable energy communities in the city and throughout the Lazio region aligns closely with the socio-economic and service-related gaps highlighted in Rome’s peripheral districts. Many outlying areas, as the yearbook notes, register some of the lowest per-capita incomes - often between 15,000 and 17,000 euros - and feature inadequate essential services such as home-care assistance, early childhood education, and accessible public transport. In contrast, centrally located neighborhoods tend to enjoy higher average incomes and more developed infrastructures, thus perpetuating a marked territorial divide. In this context, the gradual increase in renewable energy capacity in Lazio provides a concrete opportunity to address both energy poverty and broader social exclusion. Large public and private buildings in Rome are well-suited to host photovoltaic panels whose benefits can be reinvested into the local community. Moreover, efforts such as bike-sharing services, expanded pedestrian zones, and the promotion of low-emission vehicles are increasingly seen as complementary strategies that align with renewable energy goals. Cultural activities, ranging from neighborhood festivals to local arts programs, may serve a parallel function: they bolster social capital by bringing people together around common interests and values. By integrating mobility solutions and cultural offerings within the broader framework of RECs, grassroots organizations can create a virtuous cycle, reinforcing both environmental sustainability and the sense of solidarity essential for addressing socio-economic challenges in Rome’s diverse neighborhoods and in Lazio region villages. METHODOLOGY As a first step in the feasibility analysis of community services, the system size and number of members were selected based on the average characteristics observed in the RECs within the geographical context analysed. To estimate the income available for financing these community services, a representative REC was selected based on the regional average RECs characteristics. The installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity was determined by calculating the average installed capacity across all RECs interviewed, while the number of REC members was estimated as the average membership count within these communities. The data utilized in this study were sourced from the RICER platform and updated through the interview work [ 27 ]. The annual incentives available to the selected REC were calculated using the GSE simulator, considering only incentives for shared energy. Revenues from the RID mechanism were excluded, as they are assumed to cover the long-term installation costs of PV systems. In order to calculate the average annual incentives that the REC may receive and to assess the potential scope of community services, a REC composed of 25 members, 6 prosumers and 19 consumers, with a total installed capacity of 30 kW, was considered. The purpose of this work is to provide orders of magnitude of these incentives in order to discuss how adequate these are to meet the implementation of the community services that will be analysed below. The selection of community services to be analysed in this study was based on an assessment of the social structure and needs of the Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) in the Lazio Region. Through interviews conducted with representatives of 17 different RECs operating within the region, a list of 5 potential community services was compiled, reflecting the most commonly expressed needs among REC members and forming the basis of our subsequent evaluation. The insights received through these interviews are reported in the results section as they form the basis for the choice of community services and the hypotheses chosen to calculate the indicators for each service. Community services considered From the insights received through the interviews, the following 5 community services were defined and analysed. Bike-Sharing Service For the assessment of this service, a fleet of 10 traditional bicycles was considered to be made available to the community. The evaluation included the cost of the bicycle parking station as well as the long-term maintenance expenses, encompassing both repair and operational management of the service. Regarding the environmental parameters, it was assumed that each bicycle would be used for an average of 15 kilometers per day. Based on this usage, the amount of CO₂ emissions avoided was estimated by comparing it to an equivalent trip made by car. As for the social parameters, it was assumed that only 50% of community members would use the service regularly, given that, in the context under consideration, the use of bicycles remains challenging, particularly for elderly groups, which represent the majority of the community members analysed. Tree Planting Activity This type of action was included as a service, as it constitutes a true ecosystem service benefiting the entire community living in a given territory. Moreover, trees contribute to climate change adaptation by providing shade and mitigating the urban heat island effects. For this service, however, no economic value was assigned in terms of “costs avoided by individual community members.” Instead, only environmental and social values were considered. For the estimation of avoided CO₂ emissions and required investment, the planting of 100 trees was assumed, along with an additional annual expenditure of €500 for maintenance and the planting of new trees where necessary. PV Maintenance The maintenance of photovoltaic systems serving the community is typically an expense borne by individual prosumers. In evaluating this service, a collective maintenance scheme was hypothesized, aimed at reducing individual costs while optimizing the logistics of maintenance operations and simplifying the process for both users and installers. For the purposes of this simulation, it was assumed that only the six prosumers would directly benefit from this service, with an avoided cost of €25 per year for each. Capacity Building To foster an active and informed energy community, it is essential to provide training courses on energy-related topics, conscious consumption, and regulatory updates concerning RECs. For this purpose, a community service was envisioned whereby the REC itself offers an annual 20-hour training course to its members. The course also serves to introduce new members to the fundamental concepts associated with being part of a REC. For the estimation of avoided costs per member, it was assumed that each member would participate in such a training course at least three times over a 20-year period. It was also assumed that all members would be willing to attend a free training course, as being part of a REC inherently implies a certain level of interest in the topics addressed. The analysis of the social groups carried out confirms this statement. Energy Poverty Support Support for households experiencing energy poverty is one of the most frequently cited objectives in energy community projects. Nevertheless, due to bureaucratic and regulatory challenges, these social groups often struggle to participate in such initiatives and therefore represent only a small portion of the total members within a REC, at least within the social context analysed in this article. For the evaluation of this service, an annual financial support of €500 was envisioned, corresponding to approximately 30% of the average household's energy expenses. Table 1 schematically presents the assumptions employed for the subsequent analysis and prioritization of the selected community services. Table 1 Assumptions for Community Services economic, social and environmental evaluation Community Service Invest. Cost [€] Maintenance cost [€/y] CO2 avoided [eq. tons/y] Members using the service [%] Bike-sharing 7,000 1,000 6,570 50% Tree planting activity 1,200 500 12,000 100% PV maintenance 0 750 0 24% Capacity building 0 1,600 0 100% Energy Poverty 0 2,500 0 12% Indexes definition and scoring criteria To rank the community services, a composite scoring (CS) system was developed by assigning weighted values to each indicator. Economic indicators were scored based on a cost-benefit ratio, considering initial investment and maintenance costs against cost savings per member. The social indicator was evaluated by the percentage of REC members utilizing the service, while the environmental indicator was quantified based on estimated CO2 emissions avoided. Each service received a normalized score for each category, and a weighted sum approach was applied to combine the three metrics. Different weighting scenarios were tested to assess the sensitivity of rankings to variations in economic, social, and environmental priorities. The final ranking of services highlights those with the highest overall impact and feasibility for integration into RECs. Economic Index (EI) The economic index considers the balance between investment/maintenance costs and direct benefits for members. $$\:EI=\:\frac{Cs\times\:t}{\left(Ci+Cm\times\:t\right)}$$ Where: Cs = Cost savings per member Ci = Initial investment cost Cm = Annual maintenance cost t = years taken into account (20 years of incentive in our case) A higher EI indicates a service with lower costs and higher cost savings, making it more financially attractive. The Cs value has the objective of calculating the cost avoided by the individual member who uses a service provided by the REC instead of having to pay for it himself. The social index described below takes into account the fact that not all members use all services. Social Index (SI) The social index measures how many REC members benefit from the service in relation to the total community size. $$\:SI=\frac{U}{N}$$ Where: U = Number of members actively using the service N = Total number of REC members A higher SI means the service has a greater social reach and community engagement potential. Environmental Index (EnvI) The Environmental Index measures the potential CO2 reduction of each service. $$\:EnvI=\frac{CO2\:avoided}{\left(CO2\right)\:}$$ Where: CO2_avoided is the estimated reduction in emissions due to the service. The denominator is the highest CO2 reduction among all services, ensuring values remain within [0,1]. A higher EnvI means a greater environmental benefit due to the service adoption. Normalization of Indicators Since the indices have different units and different variation range, a normalization procedure was applied before summing them. Normalization was done using Min-Max Scaling formula: $$\:X{\prime\:}=\frac{\left(X-Xmin\right)}{\left(Xmax-Xmin\right)}$$ Where: X' is the normalized score. X is the original score. X_min and X_max are the minimum and maximum values for that index. This ensures that each indicator is scaled between 0 and 1, where 1 represents the best-performing service in that category. It also ensure that the variation range is similar between different indicators. Weighted Sum Approach for Final Scoring Once all indices are normalized, a final Composite Score (CS) was computed in order to rank the services: $$\:CS={w}_{e}\times\:EI{\prime\:}+{w}_{s}\times\:SI{\prime\:}+{w}_{env}\times\:EnvI{\prime\:}$$ Where: \(\:{w}_{e}\) , \(\:{w}_{s}\) , and \(\:{w}_{env}\) are the weights assigned to Economic, Social, and Environmental criteria respectively in order to also apply a sensitivity analysis. EI', SI', and EnvI' are the normalized indices. The weights sum up to 1: \(\:w\_e\:+\:w\_s\:+\:w\_env\:=\:1\) RESULTS The Results section is structured into two parts. The first part provides a summary of the most significant insights that emerged from interviews conducted with the 17 representatives of the investigated RECs. These interviews served as a starting point for the evaluation of the community services to be analyzed, as well as for the assessment of the indices, with particular reference to the social index. The second part presents the composite scores derived from the aggregation of the three indicators across the five community services. This section also introduces a sensitivity analysis, allowing for the assignment of differentiated weights to the various services in order to reflect the specific decision-making priorities of each individual community. Highlights from the interviews The interviews, involving 17 participants aged 40 to 65 from a nascent network of energy communities in Rome and villages around the city, reveal a clear demographic skew: practically all are established individuals who either hold or have held energy utility contracts, which younger people often lack. Gender balance is also a concern, with only 3 out of 17 being women. Almost every participant has a background in grassroots activism, is professionally engaged in a STEM field, or is retired, and most enjoy middle-to-upper incomes as well as higher education levels. Their common thread is a marked focus on social issues. By structuring the interviews around five focal points - socio-economic background, path to REC membership, familiarity with RECs, cooperation and solidarity, and the broader role these communities play in local development - the analysis highlights three main takeaways: justice, community services, and cultural dissemination. Justice and community engagement: participants underscore fair participation and equitable sharing of benefits as non-negotiable. They see RECs as a tool for addressing not only environmental but also social, economic, and gender-based disparities; Community services: interviewees envision energy projects capable of providing social support, thereby amplifying the broader community impact beyond utility savings; Cultural dissemination, energy literacy, and capacity building: participants pointed out that while traditional outreach often focuses on cost savings and environmental benefits, genuine community transformation hinges on energy literacy (Van den Broek, 2019) and on broadening the cultural narrative around energy. Justice and community engagement Participants interpret justice not simply as a matter of economic redistribution, but as a multilayered issue involving inclusivity, community welfare, and environmental justice. A consistent thread in the interviews is the aspiration to use the REC model to address local inequalities and social vulnerabilities. Participants generally emphasize a strong idea of internal redistribution, aligning it with a broader commitment to inclusive governance. This is reflected in how public assemblies should be organized, to decide how collective resources should be allocated. One participant, for example, states that “any surplus income should first support the most fragile within the community”. When asked about the role of RECs in the territory, participants spoke of the need to “develop ways to defend the territory from predatory models” and “big players proposing turn-key solutions and walking away with incentives, leaving behind minimal benefit”, to “build a community that places the issue of equality at its core” and “tools for territorial care, not just technical systems for energy distribution”, stressing that these communities should emerge from the real needs of residents, not be imposed externally. The concept of self-determination also appears central: “we must create forms of energy production that are ours, produced and managed in our territories, not by corporations that extract value without giving anything back”. Thus, justice also involves reclaiming agency, allowing citizens to shape decisions about their neighborhood’s future, infrastructures, and common goods. An emblematic sentence by a participant stated that “RECs must not become just a way to siphon public money, they lose meaning. We’re committed to keeping them lean, efficient, and just”. This fuels forms of moral responsibility, in which the REC “is a way to reclaim the future”. For many interviewees, their REC is not merely an energy-sharing initiative, but a continuation of years of grassroots organizing. As one participant put it, “we come from a cultural-political association, and we move best in that dimension - community activism is what grounds us”. Some also described the REC as an opportunity to rebuild local ties in a town know primarily as a tourist destination: “we want to create a community in a place that is often seen as just a vacation town. But for those of us who live here year-round, it’s our home, and we need to build something lasting”. Thus, the REC is seen not just as a tool to manage energy, but as a space of participation, mutual learning, and shared responsibility. As one member concluded: “It’s not just about energy savings – it’s about creating relationships, dialogue, solidarity”. Community services The interviews reveal a strong orientation toward community services, positioning RECs as socially embedded initiatives that aim to generate broad public value. Some participants even make a clear distinction between services directed within the REC (community-in) and those aimed beyond it, toward the broader territory (community-out), both of which are considered essential to the community’s identity and purpose. On the community-in inside, there is explicit attention to the technical and operational needs of the RECs themselves. One participant states: “the use of funds derived from incentives is not profit-driven for us. It can be used, for example, to carry out maintenance on the REC’s solar installations”. Equally recurrent is the vision of community-out services, those that extend the benefits of the REC to the surrounding neighborhood. One of the most pressing issues raised, for example, is energy poverty: “fighting energy poverty is central, especially given the situation of some families in our neighborhood”. Other typologies of services focus on aspects related to broader sustainability transitions, beyond just energy production. As one participant put it: “when we created our REC, we thought not only about decarbonization, but also about how to promote sustainability in other ways, such as shared mobility”. In general, the phrase “other services” recurs across several interviews, often accompanied by a long-term vision of the REC as a flexible and evolving platform. Participants spoke of the possibility to develop educational programs and cooperative use of public or semi-public spaces and green areas, framing the REC as an infrastructure of mutualism. Finally, the service is not always perceived solely as an indirect economic incentive, but also as an expression of a shared ideology, as exemplified by the case of tree planting. Cultural dissemination, energy literacy, capacity building Several participants underline the importance of public outreach events designed to engage citizens and foster environmental awareness. As one interviewee points out: “ We organized public gatherings, including an ‘energy quiz,’ so that people would learn and bond over the topic of renewables. ” Another adds: “ We insisted on inviting university students who read our bills and explained certain things we had never understood ” . This approach not only spreads a culture of sustainability but also strengthens communal identity around shared goals. In terms of capacity building, many emphasize how establishing a local energy community requires collaboration and resilience in the face of bureaucracy. One participant refers to registration with the national energy authority as “ a nightmare we managed to overcome only thanks to sheer willpower ” . Despite these hurdles, groups have successfully pooled skills and resources to navigate technical requirements and legal frameworks, thereby forming governance structures capable of planning for the long term. An organizer underscores how “finding new members at this stage is more difficult, but we remain determined,” illustrating the collective effort to keep the initiative active and growing. Energy literacy emerges as a central priority. Multiple interviewees point to the general lack of familiarity with basic concepts, such as how solar panels function or the extent of everyday energy consumption. “ We discovered many people had no idea that solar panels don’t work at night,” notes one participant, highlighting the importance of direct training and accessible explanations. By offering workshops on reading electricity bills or understanding the environmental impact of various household appliances, these community groups empower residents to make more informed decisions. In the words of one member, “It’s crucial that we all learn about energy flows”. Participants also highlight the value of organizing workshops that address sustainability-themed issues in an accessible and engaging way. One interviewee recalls: “ When we explained how much energy a simple hairdryer uses, people were amazed—it sparked conversations about how to optimize our consumption.” Beyond imparting knowledge, such workshops, in the intention of the REC members, should strengthen communal ties by bringing together a diverse group of residents. Community services ranking The weighted sum described in the methodology section is essential for assessing the propensity of different communities to implement specific services. The analysis of social groups reported in the previous paragraph enables us to identify some of these propensities and to use them as a basis for assigning weights to each indicator, thereby determining which community service is most appropriate depending on the social group composition of a given REC. Specifically, three scenarios will be considered within the sensitivity analysis: a. an equal weighting scenario ( \(\:{w}_{e}=\:{w}_{s}=\:{w}_{env}=1/3\) ) b. an economically focused scenario \(\:{(w}_{e}=\text{0,6},\:{\:w}_{s}=\:\:{w}_{env}=\text{0,2}\) ) c. a socially and environmentally focused scenario \(\:{(w}_{e}=\text{0,2}\:,\:{\:w}_{s}=\:\:{w}_{env}=\text{0,4}\) ) Table 2 Composite Score (CS) results for each community service analysed with three different analysis of sensitivity Equal weighting Economic focus Social and Env. focus Bike sharing 0,96 1,34 0,77 Tree planting 0,67 0,4 0,8 PV maintenance 0,51 0,86 0,33 Training courses 0,67 0,8 0,6 Energy Poverty 0,56 1 0,33 An analysis of the cumulative data presented in Table 2 reveals that all services achieve relatively high scores, thereby justifying their consideration and further evaluation by an Energy Community. None of the weight values has ever been set to zero, as the European directive clearly states that the statutory purpose of an Energy Community (REC) must always include social and environmental motivations in addition to economic ones. All three dimensions must be taken into account, although their relative importance may vary from one community to another. Notably, the bike-sharing service ranks first in both the equal weighting scenario (a) and the economically focused scenario (b). This outcome can be attributed to its multifaceted benefits: it is economically viable in terms of maintenance, widely accessible, and contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, when the community’s priorities shift toward social and environmental dimensions (scenario c), tree planting emerges as the best option. This service proves particularly impactful due to its inclusive nature, benefiting the entire community, and its substantial capacity for carbon sequestration. The same service receives the lowest score under scenario (b), where economic return is prioritized, as it does not generate direct financial benefits for individual members. Furthermore, Table 2 highlights the resilience of the community training programs, which consistently achieve high scores across all sensitivity scenarios. This robustness stems from their cost-effectiveness and their strong potential to engage a wide segment of the community. Finally, services related to the maintenance of systems for prosumer members and support for individuals experiencing energy poverty receive a very low composite score in scenario (c), as they target only a minority segment of the community and do not generate a significant environmental impact. A more in-depth understanding of how the different indicators influence the selection of the most suitable community service is visualized through Figs. 1 , 2 , and 3 . As illustrated in these visualizations, it was not possible to compute positive values for all three indicators for every service. For instance, in the case of tree planting, investment and maintenance costs can be estimated, whereas the avoided cost for individual members cannot be determined (EI = 0). Similarly, the service aimed at supporting households experiencing energy poverty cannot be evaluated in terms of sequestered carbon dioxide (Env.I = 0). The social index does not appear in this case because the normalization process sets the lowest value among all indices, namely, the support for individuals experiencing energy poverty, to zero. In the social groups analysed in this article, there is a notably low presence of members facing energy poverty, and consequently, a low percentage of individuals who would benefit from such a service. To date, Italian Energy Communities (RECs) have struggled to reach all segments of the population, remaining largely inaccessible to lower-income and socially disadvantaged groups. An important clarification must be made regarding the Social Index (SI) used in this study. The SI should be interpreted within the context of the specific social groups considered. For example, in a REC established in an area with well-developed cycling infrastructure, a bike-sharing service would likely register a higher SI. Likewise, in a REC specifically designed to address energy poverty, support measures targeting this issue would yield a significantly higher SI. Similarly, in a REC primarily composed of prosumer members, a PV maintenance service would prove far more valuable, as it would be utilized by the majority of participants. The social index proposed here, therefore, captures a snapshot of a particular type of REC membership, one that currently appears predominant in the Lazio region but also reflects broader national trends in Italy. Since REC-related legislation is standardized at the national level, the structural barriers to participation are similarly widespread. Access to these configurations remains complex and often out of reach for the most vulnerable segments of the population, including younger individuals. DISCUSSION Results showed that not all services can contribute to all three dimensions. These limitations help clarify the specific roles that each service plays within a given community. This, in turn, facilitates the identification of optimal combinations of services. A community with sufficient economic resources, for example, may consider implementing multiple services simultaneously or alternating them on a yearly basis, thereby giving balanced attention to the three core dimensions, economic, social, and environmental, that should define the mission of any Renewable Energy Community. The analysis of social groups clearly indicates that the most critical phase for a REC is the initial stage, encompassing both the launch of activities and the securing of initial project funding. This aspect must be carefully considered when evaluating which community services to implement. A particularly illustrative case is the service with the highest composite score. Although bike sharing emerges as the top-performing service in the sensitivity analysis, it is important to note that it also entails the highest investment cost among the options considered. Start-up costs for a REC are invariably the most challenging, as financial incentives typically become available only about a year after the installation of the first energy system, and even then, they are generally insufficient to support the launch of capital-intensive initiatives such as bike sharing. For this reason, the analysis also includes services that require no initial investment and can be deployed immediately after the start of the project, because launching community services from the very first year of operation is crucial to sustaining members’ interest and participation. Nevertheless, energy communities can also collect revenue in other forms than just the shared energy incentive (by collecting membership fees or winning public tenders for example). For this reason, community services have also been taken into account which might seem too expensive when compared only with the incentives provided by the Italian state for energy sharing. A REC such as the one considered in this study, comprising 25 members, including 6 prosumers, and equipped with 30 kW of installed photovoltaic capacity, can receive an annual incentive of approximately €2,000 for the energy shared within the community [ 28 ]. With this level of revenue, a service such as bike sharing would have a payback time of 6 years. In contrast, services like tree planting, PV maintenance, and capacity building could be financially self-sustaining from the first year, without the need for additional funding. The service aimed at supporting households in energy poverty, however, should be restructured to ensure its economic sustainability for the community. For this reason, such services are often defined as a percentage of the REC’s revenues rather than as a fixed amount allocated to each household. The risk with this approach, however, is that by the end of the year, the actual support provided per household may prove to be too limited to constitute meaningful economic assistance. In contrast, the approach adopted in this study allows for an early assessment of whether a REC can realistically afford to provide economic support to its energy-poor members. This depends primarily on the available revenues and the number of members requiring assistance (in this case, identified as 3 out of 25). Table 3. Cumulative REC cash flow considering the costs for community services implementation and a 2,000€ annual incentive for shared energy available to the REC Cash flow year 1 [€] Cash flow year 10 [€] Bike sharing -5,000 4,000 Tree planting 800 14,300 PV maintenance 1,250 12,500 Training courses 400 4,000 Energy Poverty -500 -5,000 Tree planting + PV maintenance 50 6,800 This issue becomes particularly evident when examining the cash flows for each of the services analysed, as presented for both the first and the tenth year in Table 3 . Services highlighted in red are those that risk being too costly for a REC and therefore require additional funding beyond the standard incentive in order to be realistically implementable. What also emerges from this analysis is the opportunity to identify which services can be carried out in parallel by the REC without resulting in financial losses. For the configuration considered in this study, the two services that can be implemented concurrently without compromising the community’s budget are tree planting and ordinary maintenance of the community's photovoltaic panels. CONCLUSION This study presents a methodology for assessing the feasibility and prioritization of community services within Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), grounded in a detailed analysis of social groups and tailored to a representative REC configuration. By adopting realistic assumptions, based on average REC characteristics and qualitative insights gathered from interviews with 17 community representatives, the approach proves not only scalable to similar contexts but also capable of informing decision-making with enhanced social relevance. The incorporation of social group analysis into the methodological framework has been particularly beneficial, enabling a better alignment between service design and the actual needs, capacities, and priorities of the communities involved. The results highlight that not all community services contribute equally across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. While some services, such as bike sharing and capacity-building programs, consistently score high across different weighting scenarios, others, such as PV maintenance and energy poverty support, receive lower composite scores, especially under socially and environmentally weighted conditions, due to their limited reach and negligible environmental impact. The analysis reveals that not every REC can afford to implement all services simultaneously. Nevertheless, in every scenario examined, the avoided cost per individual member through community services was found to exceed the benefit that would result from a uniform, direct redistribution model. This finding strongly supports the design of indirect, service-based incentive models, which not only enhance collective impact but also promote stronger community cohesion and engagement. Future research should explore how these findings hold when applied to RECs of significantly larger scale, such as those involving megawatt-level installations and hundreds of members. Key questions remain open: does a REC size threshold exist beyond which direct redistribution becomes more appealing to members than service-based benefits? Further investigation into economies of scale, governance models, and incentive distribution mechanisms in large-scale RECs could yield valuable insights for the future development of equitable and inclusive energy communities. NOMENCLATURE ARERA Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (Regulatory Authority for Energy, Networks, and Environment) CACER Configurazioni di Autoconsumo per la Condivisione dell’Energia Rinnovabile (Configurations for the Self-Consumption and Sharing of Renewable Energy) CS Composite Score DM Decreto Ministeriale (Ministerial Decree) GSE Gestore Servizi Energetici (Energy services Management authority) KPIs Key Performance Indicators RECs Renewable Energy Communities RED Renewable Energy Directive RID RItiro Dedicato (Electricity sold to the grid) Declarations Author Contribution G.U.M. and I.T. conceived the study and designed the research framework. G.U.M. led the data collection process, including interviews and questionnaires, and performed the economic analysis of the community services. I.T. contributed to the methodological design and supported the evaluation of social and environmental indicators. T.G. contributed to the analysis of results and to the interpretation of findings. D.B. provided support in data processing and contributed to the discussion of policy and practical implications. G.U.M. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript. References Union E, Directive (EU) (2018) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Accessed: Dec. 05, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_ .328.01.0082.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2018:328:TOC Magni GU, Battistelli F, Trovalusci F, Groppi D, Astiaso Garcia D (Jul. 2024) How national policies influence energy community development across Europe? A review on societal, technical, and economical factors. Energy Convers Management: X 23:100624. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2024.100624 Ministery of Environment and Energy, Security CACER Decree No. 414 of December 7, 2023, Accessed: Apr. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.gse.it/documenti_site/Documenti%20GSE/Servizi%20per%20te/AUTOCONSUMO/Altri%20contenuti/Decreto%20CER.pdf Barabino E et al (Dec. 2023) Energy Communities: A review on trends, energy system modelling, business models, and optimisation objectives. Sustainable Energy Grids Networks 36:101187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101187 Casalicchio V, Manzolini G, Prina MG, Moser D (May 2022) Optimal Allocation Method for a Fair Distribution of the Benefits in an Energy Community. Solar RRL 6(5):2100473. https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202100473 Casalicchio V, Manzolini G, Prina MG, Moser D (Mar. 2022) From investment optimization to fair benefit distribution in renewable energy community modelling. Appl Energy 310:118447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118447 Bianco G, Bonvini B, Bracco S, Delfino F, Laiolo P, Piazza G (Aug. 2021) Key Performance Indicators for an Energy Community Based on Sustainable Technologies. Sustainability 13(16):8789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168789 Mutani G, Santantonio S, Beltramino S (Feb. 2021) Indicators and representation tools to measure the technical-economic feasibility of a renewable energy community. The case study of villar pellice (italy). Int J Sustainable Dev Plann 16(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.160101 Ceglia F, Marrasso E, Roselli C, Sasso M (Feb. 2021) Small renewable energy community: The role of energy and environmental indicators for power grid. Sustain (Switzerland) 13(4):1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042137 Walker G, Devine-Wright P (Feb. 2008) Community Renewable Energy: What Should It Mean? Energy Policy 36(2):497–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019 Hargreaves N, Hargreaves N, Hargreaves T, Hargreaves T, Chilvers J, Chilvers J (2022) Socially Smart Grids? A Multi-Criteria Mapping of Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives on Smart Energy Futures in the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102610 Brummer V (Oct. 2018) Community Energy – Benefits and Barriers: A Comparative Literature Review of Community Energy in the UK, Germany and the USA, the Benefits It Provides for Society and the Barriers It Faces. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 94:187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.013 Smith A, Seyfang G Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda: Environmental Politics: Vol 16, No 4 Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (May 2007) Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept. Energy Policy 35(5):2683–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001 Bauwens T (Jun. 2016) Explaining the Diversity of Motivations behind Community Renewable Energy. Energy Policy 93:278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.017 van der Schoor T, Scholtens B (2015) Power to the People: Local Community Initiatives and the Transition to Sustainable Energy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 43, no. C, pp. 666–675 Parag Y, Sovacool BK (Mar. 2016) Electricity Market Design for the Prosumer Era. Nat Energy 1(4):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.32 Carrosio G, Magnani N (2024) Renewable Energy Communities between Critical Capacity and Socio-Technical Constraints. Introduction, Rass Ital Sociol, no. 2/2024. https://doi.org/10.1423/114118 Juntunen JK (2014) Domestication Pathways of Small-Scale Renewable Energy Technologies, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 28–42, Oct. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2014.11908130 Hicks J, Ison N (2018) An exploration of the boundaries of ‘community’in community renewable energy projects: Navigating between motivations and context. Energy Policy 113:523–534 Martin CJ, Upham P (2016) Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model. J Clean Prod 134:204–213 Kunze C, Becker S (Jul. 2015) Collective Ownership in Renewable Energy and Opportunities for Sustainable Degrowth. Sustain Sci 10(3):425–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0301-0 Rogers JC, Simmons EA, Convery I, Weatherall A (Mar. 2012) Social impacts of community renewable energy projects: findings from a woodfuel case study. Energy Policy 42:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.11.081 ARERA Testo integrato delle disposizioni dell’autorità di regolazione per energia reti e ambiente per la regolazione dell’autoconsumo diffuso. [Online]. Available: https://www.arera.it/fileadmin/allegati/docs/22/727-22alla.pdf GSE, DECRETO CACER e TIAD – Regole operative per l’accesso al servizio per l’autoconsumo diffuso e al contributo PNRR, [Online]. Available: https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/ALLEGATO%201%20Regole%20operative%20CACER%20def.pdf Municipality R (2025) accessed Apr. 11, Statistical yearbook of Rome Municipality 2024. https://www.comune.roma.it/web-resources/cms/documents/Annuario_2024.pdf Economia N (2025) accessed Apr. 11, RICER - REC repository. https://esg.nexteconomia.org/cer/ GSE (2025) accessed Apr. 11, GSE REC performance simulator. https://www.autoconsumo.gse.it/simulatore/input-base Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8426281","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":576287413,"identity":"8c31e77a-977d-4cf5-8d09-df9b2342caac","order_by":0,"name":"Gabriele Umberto Magni","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sapienza University of Rome","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gabriele","middleName":"Umberto","lastName":"Magni","suffix":""},{"id":576287414,"identity":"3c1e7551-004d-4397-8743-243e0133bbb4","order_by":1,"name":"Ignazio Terrana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sapienza University of Rome","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ignazio","middleName":"","lastName":"Terrana","suffix":""},{"id":576287415,"identity":"bb4750ed-58f2-4379-b913-9aecefae39bd","order_by":2,"name":"Tommaso Gallozzi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sapienza University of Rome","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tommaso","middleName":"","lastName":"Gallozzi","suffix":""},{"id":576287417,"identity":"dac0203c-5f5f-41af-b93a-84e94b4654b6","order_by":3,"name":"Daniele Bricca","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sapienza University of Rome","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniele","middleName":"","lastName":"Bricca","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-22 15:08:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8426281/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8426281/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100670931,"identity":"d94381c4-3510-457f-abff-b6338fe22924","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:26:32","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4222774,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/5c7cbe1b2e49545cce3c81e8.docx"},{"id":100670869,"identity":"efcc04de-a29c-430c-987e-93936c5778bc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:24:47","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6670,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5ee4cf2f1d684776aa316c52b112ee76.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/098b7fb168a85ef1a7596c44.json"},{"id":100670942,"identity":"d865586a-0988-4ff5-b01a-71c351ee8719","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:27:02","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":106964,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5ee4cf2f1d684776aa316c52b112ee761enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/3963e724ee7988a9040e1b57.xml"},{"id":100670926,"identity":"dfbef4a3-8784-4f24-8c15-7f2cc5b9c964","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:26:31","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":35979,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/4840cf342d770decc4ded8d8.png"},{"id":100670944,"identity":"35f3648e-4629-4b12-963b-59c42d058a9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:27:06","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37631,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/a58fd4c1cf76166e4a647ce5.png"},{"id":100670932,"identity":"ddf22b5b-ace9-4e58-9634-b907f54ddaf9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:26:33","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37408,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/422e87a92e4c7563e2a16eea.png"},{"id":100670909,"identity":"d3c46955-82bb-4b14-bc7d-96010c18af33","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:26:08","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":105329,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"5ee4cf2f1d684776aa316c52b112ee761structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/004304b1164626945b27e16a.xml"},{"id":100670945,"identity":"2d7ca438-8e77-45c3-a7d2-b3b1bb61fb4b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:27:06","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":115493,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/43c02a88b43dafbd2d9dd119.html"},{"id":100671033,"identity":"498d8c85-1d90-4fce-a9e6-612f5c5d00c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:29:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":28784,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIndexes visualization under equal weighting (a) analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/7273b71e8d800ef4536172a5.png"},{"id":100670895,"identity":"2347a2ad-93fb-4d67-bcc7-49e0aae45682","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:24:54","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIndexes visualization under economically focused (b) analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/427cf70ecb51650090cc71d2.png"},{"id":100670908,"identity":"f7b2b9dd-5c32-4eef-b5ae-cc3157cdb75e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-20 10:25:48","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31059,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIndexes visualization under socially and environmentally focused (c) analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/3e4d59e2e17001b094917553.png"},{"id":107661569,"identity":"641db9ce-744a-436d-b1bd-11f3b7078669","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-23 17:10:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":540686,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8426281/v1/21c38eed-ca61-4816-ad14-d93bf9db9eb5.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Community Services in Energy Communities: Integrating Economic, Social, and Environmental Indicators for Services Prioritization","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eCommunities, in their various forms, have long played a fundamental role in addressing societal challenges, fostering collaboration, and strengthening social ties. Whether they emerge around shared geographical locations, common interests, or collective goals, communities serve as powerful tools to engage individuals in meaningful ways. Historically, they have been instrumental in solving economic, social, and environmental issues by leveraging collective action and shared resources. The increasing importance of sustainability and local resilience has further underscored the need for innovative community-based initiatives, particularly in the realm of energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRenewable Energy Communities (RECs) represent a promising model that merges community engagement with the transition toward sustainable energy systems. Defined by the European Union\u0026rsquo;s Clean Energy Package, RECs are legal entities that enable citizens, businesses, and local authorities to collectively produce, consume, store, and sell renewable energy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. They not only contribute to the decarbonization of energy systems but also offer a financial framework that can support local communities through stable incentive mechanisms. However, the availability and structure of such incentives vary across Europe, influencing the effectiveness and attractiveness of RECs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Italy, in particular, has adopted a legislative framework that provides stable incentives for RECs, most recently defined by Legislative Decree No. 414 of December 7, 2023, also known as the CACER Decree [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these financial incentives, the redistribution of economic benefits across REC members often results in relatively small individual remuneration, making direct financial gains an insufficient motivator for participation. This has led to concerns regarding member engagement and long-term sustainability. A viable alternative to enhance the attractiveness of RECs lies in the strategic reinvestment of community earnings into services that address local needs and create tangible benefits for all members. By utilizing incentive-generated funds to activate community services, RECs can generate additional social and economic value. These services not only solve concrete problems within communities but also serve as a powerful engagement tool, fostering stronger participation and ensuring the long-term viability of RECs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral studies have explored methods for the redistribution of incentives within Renewable Energy Communities (RECs)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], with a particular focus on fairness and efficiency. Casalicchio et al. have proposed different allocation mechanisms aimed at maximizing both economic benefits and participants' engagement, investigating how redistributive models can influence member behavior and community cohesion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. These contributions highlight the relevance of incentive design in shaping the long-term sustainability of RECs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn parallel, a growing body of literature has examined the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to evaluate RECs from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives. Bianco et al. introduced a comprehensive set of KPIs to compare energy communities, primarily addressing their technical performance and environmental outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, Mutani et al. assessed REC performance through self-consumption and self-sufficiency indexes, complemented by a cost-optimal analysis that considers investment costs and available incentives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Ceglia et al. emphasized the role of time-dependent indicators in improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions, reporting significant reductions in both primary energy demand and CO₂ emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, while KPIs have been effectively applied to evaluate internal REC dynamics and environmental impact, they have not yet been explicitly adopted to assess the broader set of community services that a REC could potentially deliver.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLooking at communities social contexts, relevant literature consistently emphasizes the multifaceted social dimensions underlying the formation and success of community-led energy projects and, more specifically, of renewable energy communities. Therefore, trust, participation, governance, and equity are all interconnected dimensions that interact to shape project outcomes. Walker and Devine-Wright famously reported the role of collective ownership and inclusive engagement in engendering public support, noting that when local stakeholders perceive real decision-making power and tangible benefits, social acceptance markedly increases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, social innovation emerges most strongly when embedded in community-led efforts, thereby solidifying grassroots commitment to sustainability objectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. In the same way, robust communication channels and transparent governance structures are of primary importance, to avoid the risk of eroding trust through perceived forms of inequity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Following this line of research, other studies underscore the need to recognize diverse social contexts and power relations within communities. Seyfang and Smith highlight how local cultural networks and pre-existing social networks can either foster or impede the consolidation of shared values in the context of what they call \u0026ldquo;grassroots innovations\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The consequence for practitioners is therefore to tailor specific engagement strategies to address specific local concerns and aspirations. Sustained interaction with residents, indeed, can help pre-empt conflicts around landscape impacts, financial responsibilities, or questions of community identity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Bauwens further elaborates on the governance dimension, arguing that participatory frameworks can enhance social cohesion, improve knowledge-sharing, and ensure that economic returns remain within the community [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVan der Schoor and Scholtens go one step further by linking community energy projects to broader societal transitions, positing that localized renewable initiatives have the capacity to influence broader social norms regarding energy use and environmental stewardship [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Other authors similarly stress the empowerment potential inherent in RECs, noting that increased citizen engagement in project design and management can catalyse deeper transformations in consumption patterns and policy advocacy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. These insights align with research indicating that fostering a sense of ownership and pride in local achievements reinforces collective identity, which in turn motivates sustained participation and shared responsibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. However, these processes are not devoid of risks of sorts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuntunen et al. points out that unrealistic expectations or insufficient technical support can precipitate disillusionment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], while Wolsink underscores the ongoing challenge of balancing diverse interests and visions within a single community framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Equitable benefit-sharing also emerges as a central theme: when communities perceive the distribution of financial returns, jobs, and environmental gains as fair, they are more likely to remain invested in the project over the long term. This notion appears salient in contexts characterized by economic disparities or past instances of marginalization, as transparent governance and equitable risk-and-benefit allocations can serve as key drivers of social stability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on these lines of scholarship, it is fair to assume that social indicators play a critical role in evaluating and guiding RECs, particularly because they capture the often intangible dimensions of participation, trust, cohesion, and empowerment that underpin long-term project viability. For instance, Martin and Upham advocate for measuring both the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of community engagement, such as levels of inclusivity, social cohesion, and perceived agency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Kunze and Becker likewise stress the importance of tracking trust and shared identity among stakeholders, arguing that these factors directly impact a community\u0026rsquo;s willingness to coordinate efforts and allocate resources toward collective energy goals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Building on this perspective, Rogers et al. (2012) propose employing indicators that not only grasp participation rates but also capture shifts in local attitudes over time, suggesting that periodic surveys and focus groups can illuminate evolving perceptions of fairness and transparency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite these significant contributions, however, the debate and research on social indicators regarding RECs remain ongoing, requiring further exploration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAim of this study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to go beyond the traditional perspective of incentive redistribution within Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), proposing an alternative approach that reimagines incentives not merely as tools for individual economic compensation, but as levers to activate and sustain community services. While existing literature has largely focused on fair and equitable redistribution mechanisms and technical performance indicators, this work explores how incentive-derived revenues can be strategically reinvested to deliver community-oriented services that align with the shared goals and values of RECs. The novelty of the study lies in two main contributions. First, it introduces a framework for evaluating the economic feasibility and strategic coherence of various community services in relation to REC objectives, providing a multidimensional assessment of how incentives can be redirected to maximize collective benefit. Second, it applies performance indicators not to the REC itself\u0026mdash;as commonly done\u0026mdash;but to the services that a REC can offer, assessing their potential based on real-world data gathered from emerging REC initiatives within a specific territorial context. By grounding the analysis in empirical experiences, the study aims to bridge the gap between theoretical models and practical implementation, ultimately offering new insights into how community services can serve as a tool for fostering community engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eItalian incentive scheme\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe economic feasibility analyses of the various services will be assessed in light of the incentive scheme provided by the Italian government. It is therefore essential to briefly introduce the nature of this incentive. The MASE (Ministry of Environment and Energy Security) through the CACER Decree (Configurations for the Self-Consumption and Sharing of Renewable Energy), establishes the incentive mechanisms for electricity produced from renewable sources by plants integrated into self-consumption configurations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The incentive framework and the premium tariff regulation mechanism are then defined. It has a validity period of 20 years, starting from the date of commercial operation of the plant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Renewable Energy Community provides incentives for shared energy, which is the minimum between the total energy fed into the grid produced by renewable energy plants and the total energy withdrawn by REC members.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are three types of incentives, which fall within the regulatory framework:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eshared electricity feed-in-tariff under the Ministerial Decree DM MASE no.414/2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003evalorisation of self-consumed electricity by returning the tariff components as provided for in ARERA Resolution 727/2022/R/eel [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ewithdrawal of electricity fed into the grid by the GSE (RID). This incentive in our study will not be taken into consideration because it is directed to the prosumers only, thus it cannot be used for community services financing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor each kWh of incentivised electricity, the GSE pays, for a period of twenty years, a unit fee, defined as a premium rate. For each kWh of self-consumed electricity, the GSE recognises, again for a period of twenty years, a unit fee, defined as an enhancement contribution, relating to the transmission tariff [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The premium tariff is calculated according to the size of the power plant, based on the energy shared within the configuration under the same primary cabin.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGeographical context\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe RECs interviewed, from which valuable insights were gathered for the selection and analysis of community services, are all located within the Lazio Region, with the majority based in the city of Rome. Despite this geographically specific context, their distribution across a variety of urban neighborhoods and rural municipalities provides a representative cross-section of the diverse realities characterising collective self-consumption initiatives throughout Italy. This diversity enables the identification of common needs and challenges that many RECs across the country are currently facing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the Lazio Region, home to over 5.8\u0026nbsp;million inhabitants, the city of Rome serves as the demographic and economic center, with about 2.8\u0026nbsp;million residents and an extensive urban fabric that makes it Italy\u0026rsquo;s capital. In recent years, Lazio region has seen a gradual increase in installed capacity from renewable energy sources, particularly photovoltaic and, to a lesser extent, biomass and wind, though not yet matching levels seen in other Italian regions with more industrial profiles or greater wind potential. Over the past few years, energy communities have proliferated through pilot projects and experimental initiatives involving neighbourhoods and local associations, especially in Rome\u0026rsquo;s outskirts and in nearby municipalities. These projects aim to share energy generated by photovoltaic systems through cooperative models or \u0026ldquo;smart\u0026rdquo; condominiums, supported by national and regional incentives. Such frameworks can lower energy bills and foster greater environmental awareness among residents. Nevertheless, challenges frequently arise from bureaucratic procedures and constraints tied to historic building preservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the Statistical yearbook of Rome Municipality 2024 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], the expansion of renewable energy communities in the city and throughout the Lazio region aligns closely with the socio-economic and service-related gaps highlighted in Rome\u0026rsquo;s peripheral districts. Many outlying areas, as the yearbook notes, register some of the lowest per-capita incomes - often between 15,000 and 17,000 euros - and feature inadequate essential services such as home-care assistance, early childhood education, and accessible public transport. In contrast, centrally located neighborhoods tend to enjoy higher average incomes and more developed infrastructures, thus perpetuating a marked territorial divide. In this context, the gradual increase in renewable energy capacity in Lazio provides a concrete opportunity to address both energy poverty and broader social exclusion. Large public and private buildings in Rome are well-suited to host photovoltaic panels whose benefits can be reinvested into the local community. Moreover, efforts such as bike-sharing services, expanded pedestrian zones, and the promotion of low-emission vehicles are increasingly seen as complementary strategies that align with renewable energy goals. Cultural activities, ranging from neighborhood festivals to local arts programs, may serve a parallel function: they bolster social capital by bringing people together around common interests and values. By integrating mobility solutions and cultural offerings within the broader framework of RECs, grassroots organizations can create a virtuous cycle, reinforcing both environmental sustainability and the sense of solidarity essential for addressing socio-economic challenges in Rome\u0026rsquo;s diverse neighborhoods and in Lazio region villages.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs a first step in the feasibility analysis of community services, the system size and number of members were selected based on the average characteristics observed in the RECs within the geographical context analysed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo estimate the income available for financing these community services, a representative REC was selected based on the regional average RECs characteristics. The installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity was determined by calculating the average installed capacity across all RECs interviewed, while the number of REC members was estimated as the average membership count within these communities. The data utilized in this study were sourced from the RICER platform and updated through the interview work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The annual incentives available to the selected REC were calculated using the GSE simulator, considering only incentives for shared energy. Revenues from the RID mechanism were excluded, as they are assumed to cover the long-term installation costs of PV systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to calculate the average annual incentives that the REC may receive and to assess the potential scope of community services, a REC composed of 25 members, 6 prosumers and 19 consumers, with a total installed capacity of 30 kW, was considered. The purpose of this work is to provide orders of magnitude of these incentives in order to discuss how adequate these are to meet the implementation of the community services that will be analysed below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selection of community services to be analysed in this study was based on an assessment of the social structure and needs of the Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) in the Lazio Region. Through interviews conducted with representatives of 17 different RECs operating within the region, a list of 5 potential community services was compiled, reflecting the most commonly expressed needs among REC members and forming the basis of our subsequent evaluation. The insights received through these interviews are reported in the results section as they form the basis for the choice of community services and the hypotheses chosen to calculate the indicators for each service.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCommunity services considered\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the insights received through the interviews, the following 5 community services were defined and analysed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBike-Sharing Service\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the assessment of this service, a fleet of 10 traditional bicycles was considered to be made available to the community. The evaluation included the cost of the bicycle parking station as well as the long-term maintenance expenses, encompassing both repair and operational management of the service. Regarding the environmental parameters, it was assumed that each bicycle would be used for an average of 15 kilometers per day. Based on this usage, the amount of CO₂ emissions avoided was estimated by comparing it to an equivalent trip made by car. As for the social parameters, it was assumed that only 50% of community members would use the service regularly, given that, in the context under consideration, the use of bicycles remains challenging, particularly for elderly groups, which represent the majority of the community members analysed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTree Planting Activity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis type of action was included as a service, as it constitutes a true ecosystem service benefiting the entire community living in a given territory. Moreover, trees contribute to climate change adaptation by providing shade and mitigating the urban heat island effects. For this service, however, no economic value was assigned in terms of \u0026ldquo;costs avoided by individual community members.\u0026rdquo; Instead, only environmental and social values were considered. For the estimation of avoided CO₂ emissions and required investment, the planting of 100 trees was assumed, along with an additional annual expenditure of \u0026euro;500 for maintenance and the planting of new trees where necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePV Maintenance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe maintenance of photovoltaic systems serving the community is typically an expense borne by individual prosumers. In evaluating this service, a collective maintenance scheme was hypothesized, aimed at reducing individual costs while optimizing the logistics of maintenance operations and simplifying the process for both users and installers. For the purposes of this simulation, it was assumed that only the six prosumers would directly benefit from this service, with an avoided cost of \u0026euro;25 per year for each.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCapacity Building\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo foster an active and informed energy community, it is essential to provide training courses on energy-related topics, conscious consumption, and regulatory updates concerning RECs. For this purpose, a community service was envisioned whereby the REC itself offers an annual 20-hour training course to its members. The course also serves to introduce new members to the fundamental concepts associated with being part of a REC. For the estimation of avoided costs per member, it was assumed that each member would participate in such a training course at least three times over a 20-year period. It was also assumed that all members would be willing to attend a free training course, as being part of a REC inherently implies a certain level of interest in the topics addressed. The analysis of the social groups carried out confirms this statement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnergy Poverty Support\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport for households experiencing energy poverty is one of the most frequently cited objectives in energy community projects. Nevertheless, due to bureaucratic and regulatory challenges, these social groups often struggle to participate in such initiatives and therefore represent only a small portion of the total members within a REC, at least within the social context analysed in this article. For the evaluation of this service, an annual financial support of \u0026euro;500 was envisioned, corresponding to approximately 30% of the average household's energy expenses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e schematically presents the assumptions employed for the subsequent analysis and prioritization of the selected community services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssumptions for Community Services economic, social and environmental evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Service\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvest. Cost [\u0026euro;]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance cost [\u0026euro;/y]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCO2 avoided [eq.\u0026nbsp;tons/y]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMembers using the service [%]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBike-sharing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6,570\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTree planting activity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePV maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapacity building\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy Poverty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndexes definition and scoring criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo rank the community services, a composite scoring (CS) system was developed by assigning weighted values to each indicator. Economic indicators were scored based on a cost-benefit ratio, considering initial investment and maintenance costs against cost savings per member. The social indicator was evaluated by the percentage of REC members utilizing the service, while the environmental indicator was quantified based on estimated CO2 emissions avoided.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach service received a normalized score for each category, and a weighted sum approach was applied to combine the three metrics. Different weighting scenarios were tested to assess the sensitivity of rankings to variations in economic, social, and environmental priorities. The final ranking of services highlights those with the highest overall impact and feasibility for integration into RECs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEconomic Index (EI)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe economic index considers the balance between investment/maintenance costs and direct benefits for members.\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:EI=\\:\\frac{Cs\\times\\:t}{\\left(Ci+Cm\\times\\:t\\right)}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cost savings per member\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCi\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Initial investment cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCm\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Annual maintenance cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;years taken into account (20 years of incentive in our case)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA higher EI indicates a service with lower costs and higher cost savings, making it more financially attractive. The Cs value has the objective of calculating the cost avoided by the individual member who uses a service provided by the REC instead of having to pay for it himself. The social index described below takes into account the fact that not all members use all services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Index (SI)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe social index measures how many REC members benefit from the service in relation to the total community size.\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:SI=\\frac{U}{N}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eU\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Number of members actively using the service\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Total number of REC members\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA higher SI means the service has a greater social reach and community engagement potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEnvironmental Index (EnvI)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Environmental Index measures the potential CO2 reduction of each service.\u003cdiv id=\"Equc\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equc\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:EnvI=\\frac{CO2\\:avoided}{\\left(CO2\\right)\\:}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCO2_avoided is the estimated reduction in emissions due to the service.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe denominator is the highest CO2 reduction among all services, ensuring values remain within [0,1].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA higher EnvI means a greater environmental benefit due to the service adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNormalization of Indicators\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSince the indices have different units and different variation range, a normalization procedure was applied before summing them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormalization was done using Min-Max Scaling formula:\u003cdiv id=\"Equd\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equd\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:X{\\prime\\:}=\\frac{\\left(X-Xmin\\right)}{\\left(Xmax-Xmin\\right)}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX' is the normalized score.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX is the original score.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eX_min and X_max are the minimum and maximum values for that index.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis ensures that each indicator is scaled between 0 and 1, where 1 represents the best-performing service in that category. It also ensure that the variation range is similar between different indicators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWeighted Sum Approach for Final Scoring\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnce all indices are normalized, a final Composite Score (CS) was computed in order to rank the services:\u003cdiv id=\"Eque\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Eque\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:CS={w}_{e}\\times\\:EI{\\prime\\:}+{w}_{s}\\times\\:SI{\\prime\\:}+{w}_{env}\\times\\:EnvI{\\prime\\:}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{e}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{s}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{env}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e are the weights assigned to Economic, Social, and Environmental criteria respectively in order to also apply a sensitivity analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEI', SI', and EnvI' are the normalized indices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe weights sum up to 1: \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:w\\_e\\:+\\:w\\_s\\:+\\:w\\_env\\:=\\:1\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Results section is structured into two parts. The first part provides a summary of the most significant insights that emerged from interviews conducted with the 17 representatives of the investigated RECs. These interviews served as a starting point for the evaluation of the community services to be analyzed, as well as for the assessment of the indices, with particular reference to the social index. The second part presents the composite scores derived from the aggregation of the three indicators across the five community services. This section also introduces a sensitivity analysis, allowing for the assignment of differentiated weights to the various services in order to reflect the specific decision-making priorities of each individual community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eHighlights from the interviews\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interviews, involving 17 participants aged 40 to 65 from a nascent network of energy communities in Rome and villages around the city, reveal a clear demographic skew: practically all are established individuals who either hold or have held energy utility contracts, which younger people often lack. Gender balance is also a concern, with only 3 out of 17 being women. Almost every participant has a background in grassroots activism, is professionally engaged in a STEM field, or is retired, and most enjoy middle-to-upper incomes as well as higher education levels. Their common thread is a marked focus on social issues. By structuring the interviews around five focal points - socio-economic background, path to REC membership, familiarity with RECs, cooperation and solidarity, and the broader role these communities play in local development - the analysis highlights three main takeaways: justice, community services, and cultural dissemination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustice and community engagement: participants underscore fair participation and equitable sharing of benefits as non-negotiable. They see RECs as a tool for addressing not only environmental but also social, economic, and gender-based disparities;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity services: interviewees envision energy projects capable of providing social support, thereby amplifying the broader community impact beyond utility savings;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural dissemination, energy literacy, and capacity building: participants pointed out that while traditional outreach often focuses on cost savings and environmental benefits, genuine community transformation hinges on energy literacy (Van den Broek, 2019) and on broadening the cultural narrative around energy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eJustice and community engagement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants interpret justice not simply as a matter of economic redistribution, but as a multilayered issue involving inclusivity, community welfare, and environmental justice. A consistent thread in the interviews is the aspiration to use the REC model to address local inequalities and social vulnerabilities. Participants generally emphasize a strong idea of internal redistribution, aligning it with a broader commitment to inclusive governance. This is reflected in how public assemblies should be organized, to decide how collective resources should be allocated. One participant, for example, states that \u0026ldquo;any surplus income should first support the most fragile within the community\u0026rdquo;. When asked about the role of RECs in the territory, participants spoke of the need to \u0026ldquo;develop ways to defend the territory from predatory models\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;big players proposing turn-key solutions and walking away with incentives, leaving behind minimal benefit\u0026rdquo;, to \u0026ldquo;build a community that places the issue of equality at its core\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;tools for territorial care, not just technical systems for energy distribution\u0026rdquo;, stressing that these communities should emerge from the real needs of residents, not be imposed externally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of self-determination also appears central: \u0026ldquo;we must create forms of energy production that are ours, produced and managed in our territories, not by corporations that extract value without giving anything back\u0026rdquo;. Thus, justice also involves reclaiming agency, allowing citizens to shape decisions about their neighborhood\u0026rsquo;s future, infrastructures, and common goods. An emblematic sentence by a participant stated that \u0026ldquo;RECs must not become just a way to siphon public money, they lose meaning. We\u0026rsquo;re committed to keeping them lean, efficient, and just\u0026rdquo;. This fuels forms of moral responsibility, in which the REC \u0026ldquo;is a way to reclaim the future\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor many interviewees, their REC is not merely an energy-sharing initiative, but a continuation of years of grassroots organizing. As one participant put it, \u0026ldquo;we come from a cultural-political association, and we move best in that dimension - community activism is what grounds us\u0026rdquo;. Some also described the REC as an opportunity to rebuild local ties in a town know primarily as a tourist destination: \u0026ldquo;we want to create a community in a place that is often seen as just a vacation town. But for those of us who live here year-round, it\u0026rsquo;s our home, and we need to build something lasting\u0026rdquo;. Thus, the REC is seen not just as a tool to manage energy, but as a space of participation, mutual learning, and shared responsibility. As one member concluded: \u0026ldquo;It\u0026rsquo;s not just about energy savings \u0026ndash; it\u0026rsquo;s about creating relationships, dialogue, solidarity\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommunity services\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interviews reveal a strong orientation toward community services, positioning RECs as socially embedded initiatives that aim to generate broad public value. Some participants even make a clear distinction between services directed within the REC (community-in) and those aimed beyond it, toward the broader territory (community-out), both of which are considered essential to the community\u0026rsquo;s identity and purpose. On the community-in inside, there is explicit attention to the technical and operational needs of the RECs themselves. One participant states: \u0026ldquo;the use of funds derived from incentives is not profit-driven for us. It can be used, for example, to carry out maintenance on the REC\u0026rsquo;s solar installations\u0026rdquo;. Equally recurrent is the vision of community-out services, those that extend the benefits of the REC to the surrounding neighborhood. One of the most pressing issues raised, for example, is energy poverty: \u0026ldquo;fighting energy poverty is central, especially given the situation of some families in our neighborhood\u0026rdquo;. Other typologies of services focus on aspects related to broader sustainability transitions, beyond just energy production. As one participant put it: \u0026ldquo;when we created our REC, we thought not only about decarbonization, but also about how to promote sustainability in other ways, such as shared mobility\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn general, the phrase \u0026ldquo;other services\u0026rdquo; recurs across several interviews, often accompanied by a long-term vision of the REC as a flexible and evolving platform. Participants spoke of the possibility to develop educational programs and cooperative use of public or semi-public spaces and green areas, framing the REC as an infrastructure of mutualism. Finally, the service is not always perceived solely as an indirect economic incentive, but also as an expression of a shared ideology, as exemplified by the case of tree planting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCultural dissemination, energy literacy, capacity building\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral participants underline the importance of public outreach events designed to engage citizens and foster environmental awareness. As one interviewee points out: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eWe organized public gatherings, including an \u0026lsquo;energy quiz,\u0026rsquo; so that people would learn and bond over the topic of renewables.\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Another adds: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eWe insisted on inviting university students who read our bills and explained certain things we had never understood\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. This approach not only spreads a culture of sustainability but also strengthens communal identity around shared goals. In terms of capacity building, many emphasize how establishing a local energy community requires collaboration and resilience in the face of bureaucracy. One participant refers to registration with the national energy authority as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003ea nightmare we managed to overcome only thanks to sheer willpower\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Despite these hurdles, groups have successfully pooled skills and resources to navigate technical requirements and legal frameworks, thereby forming governance structures capable of planning for the long term. An organizer underscores how \u0026ldquo;finding new members at this stage is more difficult, but we remain determined,\u0026rdquo; illustrating the collective effort to keep the initiative active and growing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy literacy emerges as a central priority. Multiple interviewees point to the general lack of familiarity with basic concepts, such as how solar panels function or the extent of everyday energy consumption. \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eWe discovered many people had no idea that solar panels don\u0026rsquo;t work at night,\u0026rdquo; notes one participant, highlighting the importance of direct training and accessible explanations. By offering workshops on reading electricity bills or understanding the environmental impact of various household appliances, these community groups empower residents to make more informed decisions. In the words of one member, \u0026ldquo;It\u0026rsquo;s crucial that we all learn about energy flows\u0026rdquo;. Participants also highlight the value of organizing workshops that address sustainability-themed issues in an accessible and engaging way. One interviewee recalls: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eWhen we explained how much energy a simple hairdryer uses, people were amazed\u0026mdash;it sparked conversations about how to optimize our consumption.\u0026rdquo; Beyond imparting knowledge, such workshops, in the intention of the REC members, should strengthen communal ties by bringing together a diverse group of residents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommunity services ranking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe weighted sum described in the methodology section is essential for assessing the propensity of different communities to implement specific services. The analysis of social groups reported in the previous paragraph enables us to identify some of these propensities and to use them as a basis for assigning weights to each indicator, thereby determining which community service is most appropriate depending on the social group composition of a given REC. Specifically, three scenarios will be considered within the sensitivity analysis:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ea. an equal weighting scenario (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{w}_{e}=\\:{w}_{s}=\\:{w}_{env}=1/3\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eb. an economically focused scenario \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{(w}_{e}=\\text{0,6},\\:{\\:w}_{s}=\\:\\:{w}_{env}=\\text{0,2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ec. a socially and environmentally focused scenario \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{(w}_{e}=\\text{0,2}\\:,\\:{\\:w}_{s}=\\:\\:{w}_{env}=\\text{0,4}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposite Score (CS) results for each community service analysed with three different analysis of sensitivity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual weighting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial and Env. focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBike sharing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,96\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1,34\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTree planting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0,8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePV maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraining courses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy Poverty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn analysis of the cumulative data presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reveals that all services achieve relatively high scores, thereby justifying their consideration and further evaluation by an Energy Community. None of the weight values has ever been set to zero, as the European directive clearly states that the statutory purpose of an Energy Community (REC) must always include social and environmental motivations in addition to economic ones. All three dimensions must be taken into account, although their relative importance may vary from one community to another.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the bike-sharing service ranks first in both the equal weighting scenario (a) and the economically focused scenario (b). This outcome can be attributed to its multifaceted benefits: it is economically viable in terms of maintenance, widely accessible, and contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, when the community\u0026rsquo;s priorities shift toward social and environmental dimensions (scenario c), tree planting emerges as the best option. This service proves particularly impactful due to its inclusive nature, benefiting the entire community, and its substantial capacity for carbon sequestration. The same service receives the lowest score under scenario (b), where economic return is prioritized, as it does not generate direct financial benefits for individual members. Furthermore, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e highlights the resilience of the community training programs, which consistently achieve high scores across all sensitivity scenarios. This robustness stems from their cost-effectiveness and their strong potential to engage a wide segment of the community. Finally, services related to the maintenance of systems for prosumer members and support for individuals experiencing energy poverty receive a very low composite score in scenario (c), as they target only a minority segment of the community and do not generate a significant environmental impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA more in-depth understanding of how the different indicators influence the selection of the most suitable community service is visualized through Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in these visualizations, it was not possible to compute positive values for all three indicators for every service. For instance, in the case of tree planting, investment and maintenance costs can be estimated, whereas the avoided cost for individual members cannot be determined (EI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0). Similarly, the service aimed at supporting households experiencing energy poverty cannot be evaluated in terms of sequestered carbon dioxide (Env.I\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0). The social index does not appear in this case because the normalization process sets the lowest value among all indices, namely, the support for individuals experiencing energy poverty, to zero. In the social groups analysed in this article, there is a notably low presence of members facing energy poverty, and consequently, a low percentage of individuals who would benefit from such a service. To date, Italian Energy Communities (RECs) have struggled to reach all segments of the population, remaining largely inaccessible to lower-income and socially disadvantaged groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn important clarification must be made regarding the Social Index (SI) used in this study. The SI should be interpreted within the context of the specific social groups considered. For example, in a REC established in an area with well-developed cycling infrastructure, a bike-sharing service would likely register a higher SI. Likewise, in a REC specifically designed to address energy poverty, support measures targeting this issue would yield a significantly higher SI. Similarly, in a REC primarily composed of prosumer members, a PV maintenance service would prove far more valuable, as it would be utilized by the majority of participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe social index proposed here, therefore, captures a snapshot of a particular type of REC membership, one that currently appears predominant in the Lazio region but also reflects broader national trends in Italy. Since REC-related legislation is standardized at the national level, the structural barriers to participation are similarly widespread. Access to these configurations remains complex and often out of reach for the most vulnerable segments of the population, including younger individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eResults showed that not all services can contribute to all three dimensions. These limitations help clarify the specific roles that each service plays within a given community. This, in turn, facilitates the identification of optimal combinations of services. A community with sufficient economic resources, for example, may consider implementing multiple services simultaneously or alternating them on a yearly basis, thereby giving balanced attention to the three core dimensions, economic, social, and environmental, that should define the mission of any Renewable Energy Community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of social groups clearly indicates that the most critical phase for a REC is the initial stage, encompassing both the launch of activities and the securing of initial project funding. This aspect must be carefully considered when evaluating which community services to implement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA particularly illustrative case is the service with the highest composite score. Although bike sharing emerges as the top-performing service in the sensitivity analysis, it is important to note that it also entails the highest investment cost among the options considered.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStart-up costs for a REC are invariably the most challenging, as financial incentives typically become available only about a year after the installation of the first energy system, and even then, they are generally insufficient to support the launch of capital-intensive initiatives such as bike sharing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor this reason, the analysis also includes services that require no initial investment and can be deployed immediately after the start of the project, because launching community services from the very first year of operation is crucial to sustaining members\u0026rsquo; interest and participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, energy communities can also collect revenue in other forms than just the shared energy incentive (by collecting membership fees or winning public tenders for example). For this reason, community services have also been taken into account which might seem too expensive when compared only with the incentives provided by the Italian state for energy sharing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA REC such as the one considered in this study, comprising 25 members, including 6 prosumers, and equipped with 30 kW of installed photovoltaic capacity, can receive an annual incentive of approximately \u0026euro;2,000 for the energy shared within the community [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. With this level of revenue, a service such as bike sharing would have a payback time of 6 years. In contrast, services like tree planting, PV maintenance, and capacity building could be financially self-sustaining from the first year, without the need for additional funding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe service aimed at supporting households in energy poverty, however, should be restructured to ensure its economic sustainability for the community. For this reason, such services are often defined as a percentage of the REC\u0026rsquo;s revenues rather than as a fixed amount allocated to each household. The risk with this approach, however, is that by the end of the year, the actual support provided per household may prove to be too limited to constitute meaningful economic assistance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the approach adopted in this study allows for an early assessment of whether a REC can realistically afford to provide economic support to its energy-poor members. This depends primarily on the available revenues and the number of members requiring assistance (in this case, identified as 3 out of 25).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;margin-bottom:10.0pt;border:none;'\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color:black;\"\u003eTable 3. Cumulative REC cash flow considering the costs for community services implementation and a 2,000\u0026euro; annual incentive for shared energy available to the REC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\" style='margin:0cm;text-align:justify;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e\n \u003ctable style=\"border-collapse: collapse;border: none;width: 567px;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border-right: none;border-bottom: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-top: 1.5pt solid black;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;'\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border-right: none;border-bottom: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-top: 1.5pt solid black;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;'\u003eCash flow year 1 [\u0026euro;]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border-right: none;border-bottom: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-top: 1.5pt solid black;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;margin-top:12.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;'\u003eCash flow year 10 [\u0026euro;]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003eBike sharing\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color:#C00000;\"\u003e-5,000\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e4,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003eTree planting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e14,300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003ePV maintenance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e1,250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e12,500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003eTraining courses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e400\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e4,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003eEnergy Poverty\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:justify;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;margin-left:36.0pt;border:none;'\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color:#C00000;\"\u003e-500\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color:#C00000;\"\u003e-5,000\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191.35pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid black;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTree planting + PV maintenance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113.45pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid black;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e50\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120.45pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1.5pt solid black;padding: 0cm 5.35pt;height: 34pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6,800\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis issue becomes particularly evident when examining the cash flows for each of the services analysed, as presented for both the first and the tenth year in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Services highlighted in red are those that risk being too costly for a REC and therefore require additional funding beyond the standard incentive in order to be realistically implementable. What also emerges from this analysis is the opportunity to identify which services can be carried out in parallel by the REC without resulting in financial losses. For the configuration considered in this study, the two services that can be implemented concurrently without compromising the community\u0026rsquo;s budget are tree planting and ordinary maintenance of the community's photovoltaic panels.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents a methodology for assessing the feasibility and prioritization of community services within Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), grounded in a detailed analysis of social groups and tailored to a representative REC configuration. By adopting realistic assumptions, based on average REC characteristics and qualitative insights gathered from interviews with 17 community representatives, the approach proves not only scalable to similar contexts but also capable of informing decision-making with enhanced social relevance. The incorporation of social group analysis into the methodological framework has been particularly beneficial, enabling a better alignment between service design and the actual needs, capacities, and priorities of the communities involved.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results highlight that not all community services contribute equally across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. While some services, such as bike sharing and capacity-building programs, consistently score high across different weighting scenarios, others, such as PV maintenance and energy poverty support, receive lower composite scores, especially under socially and environmentally weighted conditions, due to their limited reach and negligible environmental impact. The analysis reveals that not every REC can afford to implement all services simultaneously. Nevertheless, in every scenario examined, the avoided cost per individual member through community services was found to exceed the benefit that would result from a uniform, direct redistribution model. This finding strongly supports the design of indirect, service-based incentive models, which not only enhance collective impact but also promote stronger community cohesion and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should explore how these findings hold when applied to RECs of significantly larger scale, such as those involving megawatt-level installations and hundreds of members. Key questions remain open: does a REC size threshold exist beyond which direct redistribution becomes more appealing to members than service-based benefits? Further investigation into economies of scale, governance models, and incentive distribution mechanisms in large-scale RECs could yield valuable insights for the future development of equitable and inclusive energy communities.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"NOMENCLATURE","content":"\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"left\" width=\"595\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eARERA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAutorit\u0026agrave; di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (Regulatory Authority for Energy, Networks, and Environment)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCACER\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfigurazioni di Autoconsumo per la Condivisione dell\u0026rsquo;Energia Rinnovabile (Configurations for the Self-Consumption and Sharing of Renewable Energy)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite Score\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecreto Ministeriale (Ministerial Decree)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGestore Servizi Energetici (Energy services Management authority)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKPIs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Performance Indicators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRECs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRenewable Energy Communities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRED\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRenewable Energy Directive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.2857%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRID\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85.7143%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRItiro Dedicato (Electricity sold to the grid)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eG.U.M. and I.T. conceived the study and designed the research framework. G.U.M. led the data collection process, including interviews and questionnaires, and performed the economic analysis of the community services. I.T. contributed to the methodological design and supported the evaluation of social and environmental indicators. T.G. contributed to the analysis of results and to the interpretation of findings. D.B. provided support in data processing and contributed to the discussion of policy and practical implications. G.U.M. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnion E, Directive (EU) (2018) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Accessed: Dec. 05, 2024. [Online]. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.328.01.0082.01.ENG\u0026amp;toc=OJ:L:2018:328:TOC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagni GU, Battistelli F, Trovalusci F, Groppi D, Astiaso Garcia D (Jul. 2024) How national policies influence energy community development across Europe? A review on societal, technical, and economical factors. Energy Convers Management: X 23:100624. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2024.100624\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.ECMX.2024.100624\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistery of Environment and Energy, Security CACER Decree No. 414 of December 7, 2023, Accessed: Apr. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.gse.it/documenti_site/Documenti%20GSE/Servizi%20per%20te/AUTOCONSUMO/Altri%20contenuti/Decreto%20CER.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.gse.it/documenti_site/Documenti%20GSE/Servizi%20per%20te/AUTOCONSUMO/Altri%20contenuti/Decreto%20CER.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarabino E et al (Dec. 2023) Energy Communities: A review on trends, energy system modelling, business models, and optimisation objectives. Sustainable Energy Grids Networks 36:101187. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.segan.2023.101187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasalicchio V, Manzolini G, Prina MG, Moser D (May 2022) Optimal Allocation Method for a Fair Distribution of the Benefits in an Energy Community. Solar RRL 6(5):2100473. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202100473\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/solr.202100473\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasalicchio V, Manzolini G, Prina MG, Moser D (Mar. 2022) From investment optimization to fair benefit distribution in renewable energy community modelling. Appl Energy 310:118447. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118447\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118447\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBianco G, Bonvini B, Bracco S, Delfino F, Laiolo P, Piazza G (Aug. 2021) Key Performance Indicators for an Energy Community Based on Sustainable Technologies. Sustainability 13(16):8789. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13168789\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13168789\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMutani G, Santantonio S, Beltramino S (Feb. 2021) Indicators and representation tools to measure the technical-economic feasibility of a renewable energy community. The case study of villar pellice (italy). Int J Sustainable Dev Plann 16(1):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.160101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18280/ijsdp.160101\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCeglia F, Marrasso E, Roselli C, Sasso M (Feb. 2021) Small renewable energy community: The role of energy and environmental indicators for power grid. Sustain (Switzerland) 13(4):1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13042137\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13042137\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalker G, Devine-Wright P (Feb. 2008) Community Renewable Energy: What Should It Mean? Energy Policy 36(2):497\u0026ndash;500. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHargreaves N, Hargreaves N, Hargreaves T, Hargreaves T, Chilvers J, Chilvers J (2022) Socially Smart Grids? A Multi-Criteria Mapping of Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives on Smart Energy Futures in the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102610\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2022.102610\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrummer V (Oct. 2018) Community Energy \u0026ndash; Benefits and Barriers: A Comparative Literature Review of Community Energy in the UK, Germany and the USA, the Benefits It Provides for Society and the Barriers It Faces. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 94:187\u0026ndash;196. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith A, Seyfang G Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda: Environmental Politics: Vol 16, No 4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eW\u0026uuml;stenhagen R, Wolsink M, B\u0026uuml;rer MJ (May 2007) Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept. Energy Policy 35(5):2683\u0026ndash;2691. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBauwens T (Jun. 2016) Explaining the Diversity of Motivations behind Community Renewable Energy. Energy Policy 93:278\u0026ndash;290. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan der Schoor T, Scholtens B (2015) Power to the People: Local Community Initiatives and the Transition to Sustainable Energy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 43, no. C, pp. 666\u0026ndash;675\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParag Y, Sovacool BK (Mar. 2016) Electricity Market Design for the Prosumer Era. Nat Energy 1(4):1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.32\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/nenergy.2016.32\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarrosio G, Magnani N (2024) Renewable Energy Communities between Critical Capacity and Socio-Technical Constraints. Introduction, Rass Ital Sociol, no. 2/2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1423/114118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1423/114118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuntunen JK (2014) Domestication Pathways of Small-Scale Renewable Energy Technologies, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 28\u0026ndash;42, Oct. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2014.11908130\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15487733.2014.11908130\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHicks J, Ison N (2018) An exploration of the boundaries of \u0026lsquo;community\u0026rsquo;in community renewable energy projects: Navigating between motivations and context. Energy Policy 113:523\u0026ndash;534\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartin CJ, Upham P (2016) Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model. J Clean Prod 134:204\u0026ndash;213\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKunze C, Becker S (Jul. 2015) Collective Ownership in Renewable Energy and Opportunities for Sustainable Degrowth. Sustain Sci 10(3):425\u0026ndash;437. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0301-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11625-015-0301-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers JC, Simmons EA, Convery I, Weatherall A (Mar. 2012) Social impacts of community renewable energy projects: findings from a woodfuel case study. Energy Policy 42:239\u0026ndash;247. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.11.081\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.11.081\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eARERA Testo integrato delle disposizioni dell\u0026rsquo;autorit\u0026agrave; di regolazione per energia reti e ambiente per la regolazione dell\u0026rsquo;autoconsumo diffuso. [Online]. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.arera.it/fileadmin/allegati/docs/22/727-22alla.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.arera.it/fileadmin/allegati/docs/22/727-22alla.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGSE, DECRETO CACER e TIAD \u0026ndash; Regole operative per l\u0026rsquo;accesso al servizio per l\u0026rsquo;autoconsumo diffuso e al contributo PNRR, [Online]. Available: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/ALLEGATO%201%20Regole%20operative%20CACER%20def.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/ALLEGATO%201%20Regole%20operative%20CACER%20def.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunicipality R (2025) accessed Apr. 11, Statistical yearbook of Rome Municipality 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.comune.roma.it/web-resources/cms/documents/Annuario_2024.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.comune.roma.it/web-resources/cms/documents/Annuario_2024.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEconomia N (2025) accessed Apr. 11, RICER - REC repository. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://esg.nexteconomia.org/cer/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://esg.nexteconomia.org/cer/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGSE (2025) accessed Apr. 11, GSE REC performance simulator. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.autoconsumo.gse.it/simulatore/input-base\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.autoconsumo.gse.it/simulatore/input-base\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Renewable Energy Communities, Community Engagement, Incentive Mechanisms, Local Resilience, Community Services, Sustainable Energy Transition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8426281/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8426281/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRenewable Energy Communities (RECs) are pivotal not only for advancing the energy transition but also for fostering virtuous and resilient local communities. Their potential goes beyond energy production, as they can serve as hubs for collective well-being and cooperation. However, a significant challenge to their success lies in ensuring sufficient member engagement. The financial benefits provided often fail to offer adequate motivation, as community-level incentives, when available, do not always justify participation. That is why a critical factor in enhancing REC value lies in offering captivating and economically viable community services that strengthen members' engagement while providing indirect remuneration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study evaluates the feasibility of 5 potential community services, including bike sharing, PV system maintenance, tree planting, capacity building, and energy poverty support. The selection and evaluation of these services were informed by a need assessment based on interviews and questionnaires conducted across 17 RECs in Italy, aiming to reflect the real needs of local social groups. For each service, the annual community-level cost and the avoided individual cost are calculated. The environmental and social benefits are also evaluated, and a set of indicators is identified. This approach leads to a prioritization of services that are economically viable for RECs, taking into account also social and environmental benefits at community level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the results, bike sharing emerges as the most suitable service for the REC types considered, albeit with the highest investment cost, while tree planting appears as the most aligned with the needs of communities with a stronger focus on social and environmental values. By emphasizing the environmental, social and economic benefits of well-designed community services, this work highlights their crucial role in boosting member participation and engagement, thereby reinforcing the overall sustainability and attractiveness of RECs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Community Services in Energy Communities: Integrating Economic, Social, and Environmental Indicators for Services Prioritization","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-20 09:07:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8426281/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"20675353-f3a7-47c7-ae19-e6b17cf10af7","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 20th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-23T17:10:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-20 09:07:57","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8426281","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8426281","identity":"rs-8426281","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}