Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts: Experimental Governance and Transformative Capacity in Bucharest and Copenhagen

Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts: Experimental Governance and Transformative Capacity in Bucharest and Copenhagen | 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 Case Report Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts: Experimental Governance and Transformative Capacity in Bucharest and Copenhagen Enza Lissandrello, Codrut Papina, Pietro Elisei, Jens Iuel-Stissing, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6930084/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) are central to the European Union’s vision for climate-neutral cities, aiming to transform urban energy systems at the neighborhood scale through integrated technological, infrastructural, and governance innovations. Beyond technical solutions, PEDs increasingly serve as experimental arenas where new planning practices, institutional arrangements, and stakeholder collaborations are tested amid uncertainty. This article explores experimental governance through co-creation processes, based on empirical evidence from the KINETIC project (2023–2025), a JPI Urban Europe initiative. Focusing on two urban living labs in Bucharest and Copenhagen, the study analyses the implementation of a co-creation roadmap that facilitates multi-stakeholder engagement, knowledge integration, and collective envisioning of PEDs as drivers of sustainable urban transition. The Bucharest case demonstrates the role of virtual PED models and community empowerment in a post-socialist context, while Copenhagen highlights housing associations’ intermediary role and the challenges of navigating regulatory complexity within mature energy infrastructures. Drawing on theories of urban experimentation, reflexive governance, and transformative capacity, the findings reveal how co-creation fosters institutional learning, spatial negotiation, and adaptive planning. The study underscores that situated experimental practices enhance governance reflexivity and build capacities for long-term socio-technical transitions, while also surfacing tensions between technocratic agendas and inclusive, just urban futures. Multi-stakeholder engagement Sustainability transitions Urban experimentation Social equity Governance frameworks Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Science highlights Development of a Structured Co-Creation Roadmap: This study introduces an innovative, iterative methodological framework that facilitates multi-stakeholder engagement, collaborative knowledge production, and adaptive strategic planning in the governance of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) under conditions of uncertainty. Dual-Track Governance as a Core Principle: The findings emphasise that effective PED governance depends on the dynamic interplay between top-down institutional policy frameworks and bottom-up community-driven initiatives, underscoring the importance of continuous negotiation across different governance scales. Embedding Reflexive Governance in Co-Creation: The research illustrates how reflexive governance, operationalised through participatory co-creation processes, promotes stakeholder empowerment, trust-building, and adaptive capacity necessary to navigate complex socio-technical and regulatory contexts. Critical Attention to Institutional Barriers and Social Equity: The article draws attention to enduring challenges stemming from regulatory monopolies, power asymmetries, and socio-economic inequalities, highlighting the imperative for explicit prioritisation of equity and inclusion to avoid perpetuating existing disparities within PED transitions. Policy and practice recommendations Foster Inclusive Stakeholder Collaboration: As demonstrated in this article’s case studies of Bucharest and Copenhagen, broad engagement of municipal bodies, housing associations, utilities, civil society, and residents - particularly in socio-economically diverse communities - is essential to legitimise and sustain Positive Energy District initiatives. Adopt Flexible and Reflexive Governance Approaches: The co-creation roadmap presented in the article exemplifies how adaptive, iterative frameworks can facilitate continuous learning and collaborative decision-making, enhancing responsiveness to local contexts and evolving challenges. Enable Regulatory Reform for Local Energy Sharing: The article highlights how existing legal and institutional constraints limit energy sharing and data access, calling for targeted policy reforms to enable decentralised, community-driven energy solutions. Prioritise Social Equity and Inclusion: Through its focus on disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the article underscores the importance of embedding social equity in PED strategies to prevent reinforcing existing inequalities and to promote just, resilient urban energy transitions. 1. Introduction In the context of urgent climate targets and the European Union’s ambition for climate-neutral cities by 2050, Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) have emerged as a flagship strategy for reconfiguring energy systems at the district scale within broader urban transitions (JPI Urban Europe, 2020; SET-Plan Action 3.2, 2018). Anchored in the European Commission’s strategic energy planning agenda, PEDs aim to create neighbourhoods that produce more renewable energy than they consume on an annual basis through the integration of high-performance buildings, renewable energy technologies, digital platforms, and user-driven demand flexibility (Derkenbaeva, 2022; Gall et al., 2020). While initially framed as techno-economic innovations, PEDs are increasingly recognised as complex socio-technical assemblages that require coordination across spatial planning, governance innovation, and citizen engagement (Nguyen & Batel, 2024; von Wirth et al., 2021; Clerici Maestosi, 2024). This article contributes to the growing literature on urban experimentation by approaching PEDs not merely as technical interventions, but as urban governance experiments that unfold under conditions of uncertainty, indeterminacy, and contested urban futures (Evans et al., 2021; Karvonen & Van Heur, 2014; Parodi et al., 2023). Recent scholarship has highlighted how experimental approaches - pilots, living labs, and co-creation platforms - can generate transformative capacity by embedding reflexive practices in urban governance (Wolfram et al., 2019; Lissandrello et al., 2023). Yet, the actual mechanisms through which these experiments contribute to institutional learning, knowledge integration, and spatial justice remain insufficiently explored in the context of energy transitions. Our empirical focus is the KINETIC project ( Knowledge Integration for Neighbourhoods in Energy Transition led by Inclusive Communities ), a JPI Urban Europe initiative (2022–2025). Within this project, we co-developed and tested an original co-creation roadmap , a structured participatory process designed to facilitate dialogue and decision-making among public authorities, utilities, civil society organisations, and residents in neighbourhoods undergoing energy transition. Applied in the cities of Bucharest and Copenhagen, the roadmap operates as a governance tool for unpacking the spatial, social, and institutional complexity of PEDs. It supports collective exploration of how PEDs intersect with local priorities, historical path-dependencies, and infrastructure capacities, thereby reframing PEDs as levers for sustainable urban transformation, not just as end-goals of technological optimisation. The co-creation roadmap functions as a form of situated experimentation that foregrounds process over prescription, embedding local knowledge and stakeholder perspectives into the early stages of PED conceptualisation. As such, it contributes to the broader debate on how urban experimentation mediates uncertainty, enables learning, and facilitates institutional adaptation (Voß & Kemp, 2006; Turnheim et al., 2015; Grin, 2020). Rather than viewing experimentation as a bounded trial, we frame it as an unfolding governance mode—one that can produce new relationships, forms of knowledge, and capacities for long-term transition. This article explores the following research question: How does co-creation mapping, as a situated experimental practice, shape governance reflexivity and transformative capacity in the development of Positive Energy Districts? This question responds directly to the special issue’s call to unpack the governance implications of urban experimentation in the context of sustainability and climate action. By analysing how the KINETIC roadmap experiment unfolds across the two cases of Bucharest and Copenhagen, we aim to contribute to current debates on urban transformative capacity, participatory governance, and the experimental turn in planning practice. We argue that PEDs, when approached through reflexive, co-creative methods, can function as catalysts for institutional innovation and spatial justice, but also reveal persistent tensions between technocratic energy logics and inclusive urban governance across different urban contexts. The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 introduces the conceptual framework of urban experimentation, focusing on reflexivity, uncertainty, and transformative governance. Section 3 outlines the research design and methodology. Section 4 presents the empirical analysis of the KINETIC project in Bucharest and Copenhagen. Section 5 discusses how co-creation mapping contributes to experimental governance logics across the two cases. The article concludes by reflecting on the role of PEDs in expanding urban transformative capacity under conditions of systemic indeterminacy. 2. Conceptual Framework: Urban Experimentation, Reflexivity, and Transformative Capacity The emergence of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) as instruments of urban sustainability reflects a broader shift in planning and governance towards experimental forms of intervention. Urban experimentation has become central to how cities navigate the complexities of climate change, energy transitions, and institutional adaptation (Evans et al., 2021; Karvonen & Van Heur, 2014). Defined as place-based practices through which new ways of knowing and doing are tested in real-world settings (Bulkeley et al., 2016), urban experimentation is increasingly seen as a response to the indeterminacy of contemporary urban challenges, providing both a means to act amid uncertainty and a process of ‘learning by doing’ (Parodi et al., 2023; Schön & Argyris, 1996). Rather than being confined to discrete pilots or technical trials, experimentation is increasingly institutionalised as a governance mode (Voß & Kemp, 2006). This mode is characterised by iterative learning, reflexivity, and the provisional reconfiguration of roles, rules, and responsibilities. In the context of PEDs, this means rethinking the implementation of energy systems not only as infrastructural projects but as socially embedded and politically negotiated processes. Urban experimentation, in this view, is not a neutral tool but a contested field that can both reinforce and disrupt existing power relations (Castán Broto & Bulkeley, 2013; Lissandrello et al., 2023). A central concern in recent literature is how experimentation contributes to transformative capacity - the ability of urban systems to engage with structural change through anticipatory, inclusive, and adaptive strategies (Wolfram et al., 2019). Transformative capacity depends on more than technological innovation; it requires institutional openness, cross-sectoral collaboration, and attention to social justice and inclusion (Turnheim et al., 2015; Bylund et al., 2022). PEDs, while often driven by performance indicators and policy targets, provide a unique context for testing whether such capacities can be fostered through collaborative and reflexive planning practices. One key mechanism for enabling transformative governance is co-creation, which in this article refers to participatory and knowledge-integrative processes that bring together diverse stakeholders, including municipal authorities, residents, civil society organisations, and energy providers, into the early stages of design and decision-making (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Frantzeskaki, 2019). Co-creation challenges hierarchical modes of planning by recognising the situated expertise of stakeholders and the need for dialogic knowledge production. As a practice of urban experimentation, co-creation is inherently political: it shapes what problems are made visible, whose knowledge counts, and which futures are rendered thinkable (Rydin, 2007; Healey, 1998; Lissandrello, 2025). Finally, we draw on the notion of reflexive governance, which emphasises the need to adapt governing practices in light of emerging uncertainties, feedback, and unintended effects (Voß & Kemp, 2006; Lissandrello & Grin, 2011). In energy planning, reflexivity requires an ability to question assumptions, revise strategies, and incorporate new insights over time. The co-creation roadmap developed in the KINETIC project embodies this reflexive logic: it functions as a spatial and procedural device that enables stakeholders to explore, contest, and reframe the role of PEDs within ongoing urban transitions. Taken together, these concepts of urban experimentation, co-creation, transformative capacity, and reflexive governance form the analytical framework through which we examine the empirical cases of the PED co-creation in Bucharest and Copenhagen (Figure 1). Rather than evaluating PEDs solely through technical metrics, we investigate how PED as an experimental practice shaped by relational, institutional, and epistemic dimensions of sustainable urban transitions. Sustainable transitions pathways (Geels, 2004; Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013) often follow diversified and enabling bottom-up practices (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012; Van der Schoor & Scholtens, 2015). Recent studies stress the need for reflexive governance and co-creation to navigate uncertainties and power dynamics inherent in local transitions (Hughes & Hoffmann, 2020; Hodson & Marvin, 2017). This aligns with our focus on co-creation as a governance method to support adaptive and socially just PED strategies. 3. Methodology Qualitative exploratory case study approaches have gained traction in Positive Energy District (PED) research, complementing traditional technical and modelling studies by examining the socio-political, governance, and participatory dimensions of PED development (Nguyen, & Batel, 2024; Wolfram, 2019; Krangsås et al., 2021). These methods are particularly valuable for investigating PEDs as complex socio-technical experiments embedded within diverse urban contexts, where understanding stakeholder dynamics, institutional arrangements, and co-creation processes is crucial for successful implementation and transition. Building on this growing body of work, this article employs a qualitative, exploratory embedded case study design (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Piekkari & Welch, 2018) that focuses on the processes and governance mechanisms shaping the potential realisation of PEDs, rather than analysing fully implemented districts. The study examines PEDs as situated urban experiments in their formative stages through co-creation practices, capturing how local actors engage with, shape, and negotiate the emerging pathways toward energy transition. This emphasis on projectuality (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Lissandrello and Grin, 2011) enabled stakeholders to engage with PEDs as potential catalysts for change rather than fixed, predetermined outcomes, involving a plurality of actors with diverse roles, interests, and capacities (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2013). The empirical material is drawn from the KINETIC project (Knowledge Integration for Neighbourhoods in Energy Transition led by Inclusive Communities), a JPI Urban Europe initiative (2022–2025). As members of the project team, the authors actively designed and facilitated co-creation processes, fostering collaboration with municipal stakeholders in the two demo cities: Bucharest (Romania) and Copenhagen (Denmark). While this article does not present a formal comparative analysis, it reflects on the team’s experimental insights into how distinct institutional contexts and governance traditions shape the activation of local energy transition pathways and experimental governance practices. These cities were purposively selected for their contrasting institutional contexts, urban governance traditions, and stages of engagement with sustainability transitions. Over the past two decades, both cities have followed distinct trajectories in their energy transitions, shaped by variations in regulatory frameworks, legal systems, and market structures. These differences are further influenced by divergent levels of community readiness, patterns of responsibility-sharing in energy governance, renewable energy uptake, and the availability of technological, institutional, and financial resources. These differences are further influenced by divergent levels of community readiness, patterns of responsibility-sharing in energy governance, renewable energy uptake, and the availability of technological, institutional, and financial resources. Building on these contextual differences, the following methodological approach employs a comparative embedded case study design to explore how co-creation processes shape the early governance and experimentation of Positive Energy Districts in these distinct urban settings. 3.1 Research Design (case study framework, unit of analysis) This study adopts an embedded case study design (Yin, 2017) to examine the governance and experimentation processes shaping the early conceptualisation of Positive Energy Districts. The unit of analysis is the situated co-creation process rather than the PED as a fixed technical object. The two case studies—Bucharest and Copenhagen—serve as distinct urban experiments in which the co-creation roadmap was deployed. These cases reflect diverse institutional contexts and governance traditions, with stakeholder engagement strategies tailored to local institutional cultures, networks, and readiness for energy transition. Co-creation is understood here not only as a participatory value but as a situated method for generating shared understandings, building coalitions, and enabling reflexive governance in complex transition contexts (Voorberg et al., 2015; Brandsen et al., 2018; Ansell & Torfing, 2021). In other words, the co-creation roadmap works both as a research tool and an embedded process that traced how actors make sense of problems, opportunities, and institutional constraints in context-specific ways. This approach builds on recent scholarship emphasizing participatory methods in PED planning (Levenda, 2019; Sassenou et al, 2025; Sareen et al., 2022, Bylund, 2020). However, unlike many existing studies, the KINETIC project positioned co-creation not as an add-on to implementation but as the core of an exploratory governance process focused on identifying planning potentials, developing shared analytical capacities, and uncovering the institutional mechanisms that shape energy transitions within specific contexts. 3.2 Data Collection (multi-methods: workshops, interviews, observations, documents) Data were collected between 2022 and 2024 using a multi-method strategy designed to capture the complexity of PED development and governance. The primary data sources included six workshops and mapping sessions conducted in each city, structured around the KINETIC co-creation roadmap to facilitate participatory engagement. Complementing these, participant observation was carried out during field visits, community events, and planning meetings to document real-time interactions and contextual dynamics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with approximately twenty stakeholders involved in PED development, including planners, municipal officers, energy advisors, and residents. These interviews provided in-depth insights into stakeholder perspectives, decision-making processes, and governance challenges. Additionally, a thorough document analysis was performed, covering municipal plans, policy reports, project deliverables, and strategic documents related to energy and spatial development, which helped contextualize the empirical findings within broader policy frameworks. All workshop activities were meticulously recorded through detailed field notes, session artefacts such as maps and templates, and visual documentation. This comprehensive data collection enabled a robust post-hoc reconstruction of stakeholder interactions and the interpretive dynamics shaping the co-creation process. 3.3 Co-Creation Roadmap (methodological architecture as the core) The co-creation roadmap developed within the KINETIC project works as a methodological architecture that operationalizes co-creative principles in the complex domain of Positive Energy District (PED) planning. Rather than a simple procedural guide, the roadmap structures iterative, multi-stakeholder engagement processes that facilitate collaborative knowledge production, reflexive governance, and strategic planning under conditions of uncertainty and diversity across urban contexts. This framework guides stakeholders through a carefully designed sequence of participatory stages, enabling them to collectively explore local energy transition pathways, integrate diverse forms of expertise, and generate actionable strategic visions responsive to context-specific challenges and opportunities. The roadmap is organised into eight sequential blocks , each addressing critical dimensions of PED development and deployment (Figure 2). The first block, Stakeholder Identification , focuses on mapping and engaging key actors across multiple sectors - including municipal authorities, civil society, academia, industry, and housing associations - to build a committed community network. Activities within this block include comprehensive stakeholder mapping, alignment of institutional roles, and convening a local kick-off event to establish shared objectives and governance structures. The second block, Local Energy Communities and Feasible Options , shifts attention to exploring the potential for Local Energy Communities (LECs) within each demonstration city. This involves assessing existing local legislation, developing methodologies for establishing LECs, and conducting collaborative workshops aimed at defining the legal, social, and technical conditions necessary for their successful implementation. In the third block, Development Priorities , the focus is on identifying key themes and challenges related to PED transformation, such as renewable energy integration, regulatory gaps, and financing constraints. This culminates in a strategic roadmap outlining priorities, resources, and timelines necessary for advancing PED development at the demo sites. Building on these foundations, the fourth block, Energy Requirements , analyses current energy consumption patterns and building archetypes within the demonstration areas. Employing tools like TREE PED (Ciulla et al., 2024), this block applies spatial multi-criteria analyses and energy demand profiling to define feasible energy efficiency measures and renewable energy integration scenarios tailored to local conditions. The fifth block, Quantitative and Qualitative PED Mapping and Retrofit Assessment , assesses the potential of PEDs through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Stepwise activities include analyzing energy use data to identify efficiency opportunities, producing preliminary PED maps by surveying spatial and energy datasets, and evaluating the technical, economic, social, and environmental feasibility of renewable energy solutions with stakeholders participation to ensure contextual fit and scalability. Next, the sixth block, Co-Design DEMO Development Vision , aligns stakeholder aspirations by collecting insights through surveys that capture community needs and preferences. This phase incorporates a reflexive SWOT analysis, which extends beyond the traditional SWOT framework by fostering ongoing critical reflection among stakeholders on their assumptions, values, and power relations (Vlados, 2019). Unlike conventional SWOT analyses that tend to produce static lists of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, reflexive SWOT emphasizes the dynamic, situated, and socially constructed nature of these factors, encouraging iterative interrogation of how different perspectives shape the identification and prioritization of strategic issues (Vennix, 1996; Moriarty & Honnery, 2006). This participatory and context-sensitive approach aligns with broader principles of participatory strategic planning and evaluation that seek to enhance stakeholder engagement and collective learning (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). Through this iterative process of dialogue and reflection, a 30-year vision for the demo site is co-designed and continuously refined to ensure it balances long-term sustainability ambitions with practical feasibility, consistent with systemic and reflexive approaches to complex problem-solving (Arnold & Wade, 2015). The seventh block, Development Scenarios , involves crafting potential development scenarios based on evaluations of energy sources, building retrofit options, and community engagement approaches. Stakeholders contribute to designing three scenarios, followed by detailed narratives describing how two selected scenarios could evolve in the local context, including their anticipated social and environmental impacts. Finally, the eighth block, Design of PED Transformation Roadmap , synthesizes insights and knowledge generated through the preceding blocks to formulate a flexible and adaptive transformation roadmap. This process is inherently collaborative and reflexive, involving iterative co-design with stakeholders to ensure that the roadmap resonates with local aspirations, institutional capacities, and socio-political realities. By foregrounding inclusivity and contextual responsiveness, this block aims to produce a strategic guide that facilitates practical feasibility while supporting ongoing experimentation and learning, thereby enabling the desired energy transition of the demo site into a potential fully functioning Positive Energy District. The eight blocks of the co-creation roadmap (Figure 2) align closely with the four conceptual pillars guiding this research (Table 1). Stakeholder engagement and visioning activities (Blocks 1, 2, and 6) embody principles of co-creation, facilitating collaborative knowledge production and coalition-building. The iterative exploration of priorities, scenarios, and transformation strategies (Blocks 3, 7, and 8) operationalizes urban experimentation and builds transformative capacity. Meanwhile, reflective assessment and feedback mechanisms embedded in Blocks 4, 5, and 6 support reflexive governance, enabling continuous learning and adaptation. This alignment underscores the roadmap’s role as a practical instantiation of the theoretical framework, bridging theory and praxis in the governance of PED transitions. Table 1 – The four conceptual pillars guiding the KINETIC co-creation roadmap (table own production) Conceptual Pillar Aligned Roadmap Blocks Role in PED Development Co-Creation Blocks 1 (Stakeholder Identification), 2 (Local Energy Communities), 6 (Co-Design DEMO Development Vision) Facilitate collaborative knowledge production and coalition-building among diverse stakeholders potentially involved in the energy transition. Urban Experimentation Blocks 3 (Development Priorities), 7 (Development Scenarios), 8 (Design of PED Transformation Roadmap) Enable iterative exploration of priorities, energy and urban scenarios, and strategies, building transformative capacity. Reflexive Governance Blocks 4 (Energy Requirements), 5 (Quantitative & Qualitative PED Mapping), 6 (Co-Design DEMO Development Vision) Support reflective assessment, feedback, and continuous learning for adaptive governance. Transformative Capacity Blocks 3, 7, 8 (same as Urban Experimentation) Operationalize long-term shifts through strategic planning and enactment of transformation urban energy pathways. 3.4. Analytical Approach (interpretive policy analysis, governance ethnography, coding) Interpretive policy analysis has been increasingly applied in energy transition research to unpack the socio-political and discursive dimensions of governance in complex, contested settings (Hajer, 2005; Bulkeley & Mol, 2003; Rinkinen et al.,2021). While its explicit use in Positive Energy District studies is emerging, recent work on participatory governance and experimental planning in PEDs reflects interpretive approaches by focusing on meaning-making, framing processes, and co-production of governance arrangements (Genus & Theobald, 2016; Glück, 2023; Mee et al., 2021). This study builds on these traditions to explore how actors engage with PEDs as situated socio-technical experiments. Although governance ethnography has also not been extensively documented as a standalone method within PED research, its principles resonate closely with recent qualitative studies emphasizing participatory governance, reflexivity, and situated knowledge production in PED contexts. This study draws on governance ethnographic sensibilities to analyze how governance capacities and meanings are co-produced through situated interactions among stakeholders involved in PED development. 3.5 Reflexivity and Positionality (embedded researcher role, ethics) As researchers actively involved in the design and facilitation of the co-creation roadmap, we acknowledge our embedded positionality within the experiment, both in shaping the roadmap itself and guiding the co-creation process (Bradwell & Marr, 2008; Steen & van Bueren, 2017; Bisschops & Beunen, 2019). This positionality was managed through regular team reflection sessions, iterative feedback loops with local partners, and careful attention to ethical concerns related to representation, power asymmetries, and participant expectations. Rather than striving for neutrality, this PED research embraces situated reflexivity as a fundamental component of knowledge production in the context of this co-creation experiment and experimental urban governance. 3.6 Limitations and Challenges While the co-creation roadmap effectively facilitated stakeholders’ engagement and knowledge integration, the methodological process encountered several challenges. These included varying levels of stakeholder availability and commitment, differing degrees of institutional readiness between Bucharest and Copenhagen, and difficulties in reconciling diverse interests within the constraints of workshop formats. Furthermore, the inherently iterative and exploratory nature of the roadmap meant that some outcomes remained provisional, underscoring the persistent uncertainty characteristic of experimental governance processes. Recognizing these limitations reinforces the study’s reflexive stance and highlights opportunities for future methodological refinement. 3.7 Ethical Considerations Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable Ethical standards were rigorously upheld throughout the research. All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in workshops and interviews. Confidentiality was ensured by anonymizing responses and securely managing data storage in compliance with GDPR regulations. The research team remained vigilant to power asymmetries among stakeholders, fostering an inclusive and respectful environment that promoted open dialogue and equitable participation. 3.8 Funding Declaration This research received no external funding. 4. Bucharest Case Study: Urban and Energy Transition Context Bucharest, the capital and largest city of Romania, is located in the southeastern part of the country along the banks of the Dâmbovița River . With a metropolitan population exceeding 2 million inhabitants, Bucharest serves as Romania’s political, economic, and cultural hub. The city has undergone significant urban transformations, shifting from a centrally planned socialist city during the communist era to a rapidly urbanising metropolis marked by market-driven growth and socio-economic restructuring since the 1990s (Stanilov, 2007; Surubaru & Nitoiu, 2021). The post-socialist urban transition in Bucharest has been characterized by rapid suburbanization, informal developments, and infrastructural challenges, which have shaped the city’s spatial and social dynamics (Kovács, 2009; Palaghiţă et al., 2017). This transition has posed complex challenges for sustainable urban development and climate-responsive governance, particularly in the energy sector. Romania’s energy transition, and specifically thatof Bucharest, reflects broader trends within Eastern Europe marked by shifts from fossil-fuel dependence towards integration of renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency measures. Despite significant progress at the national level (IRENA, 2021), Bucharest faces specific challenges due to its aging building stock, energy-intensive infrastructure, and fragmented governance structures (Petrache et al., 2018; Voicu-Dorobanțu, 2021). Recent studies highlight the importance of local governance innovation and community engagement in advancing Bucharest’s energy transition pathways (Dragomir et al., 2024; Stanescu et al., 2025). The city’s potential for Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) is linked to these dynamics, including opportunities to retrofit existing neighborhoods and develop new energy communities within a complex institutional context (Dabija & Nicolae, 2020). 4.1 Applying the Co-Creation Roadmap in Bucharest The implementation of the KINETIC co-creation roadmap in Bucharest unfolded within a complex urban and institutional milieu shaped by post-socialist dynamics and persistent challenges of energy transition. The roadmap was carefully adapted to the city’s distinct governance arrangements, diverse stakeholder network, and socio-technical context, requiring a flexible, context-sensitive facilitation approach by the project team. An initial critical task involved comprehensive stakeholder mapping and engagement, encompassing municipal authorities, utilities, housing associations, civil society actors, and academic institutions. Acknowledging fragmentation and uneven institutional capacities, the project team deliberately fostered a collaborative ecosystem aimed at sustaining ongoing dialogue, mutual learning, and coordinated action. Early workshops mobilised local stakeholders in Sector 6 neighboughood, exploring feasible pathways toward sustainable Local Energy Communities (LECs). These engagements convened diverse participants - from local government and NGOs to energy and building experts and community members - stimulating conversations on scaling energy interventions from the building to the neighbourhood level. A key focus was the ELENA-funded initiative generating surplus energy from Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEB) schools, with participants deliberating innovative uses such as energy storage, community applications (public lighting, EV charging), and centralized monitoring systems. Emphasis was placed on promoting community participation and citizen empowerment to address energy poverty and advance energy democracy. Building on this foundation, subsequent workshops explored regulatory and operational models for LEC implementation. The project team facilitated the co-development of pragmatic scenarios that envisioned NZEB schools as localized energy producers, homeowner associations adopting rooftop solar through targeted support, and the formation of neighbourhood-wide energy cooperatives grounded in democratic governance and renewable energy distribution. These scenarios underscored principles of decentralization, affordability, and collective ownership. Anchoring the roadmap to the workshops, the project team then shifted to legislative and spatial considerations, with the attention to the Drumul Taberei’s multifamily housing stock emerging as a critical priority due to its scale, energy inefficiencies, and socio-economic diversity, including vulnerable populations affected by energy poverty. This neighbourhood, spanning approximately 3.3 km² and housing some 80,000 residents, with over 70% of buildings requiring energy-efficient renovations, became the focal area for integrated PED experimentation. Given spatial constraints for rooftop photovoltaics, the project team and stakeholders conceptualized a “virtual” Positive Energy District, leveraging underutilised public land and digital platforms to enable energy sharing beyond physical boundaries. This digital innovation addressed regulatory and infrastructural limits, aligning with emerging smart grid and community energy paradigms and extending the experimental city framework. Concurrently, the value of public green spaces for carbon sequestration and urban cooling was explored, incorporating cutting-edge urban design elements informed by parallel projects. The roadmap’s emphasis on Local Energy Communities supported a detailed exploration of legal frameworks and infrastructural opportunities, revealing challenges such as financing, regulatory ambiguity, and multi-actor coordination. Participatory workshops enabled stakeholders to negotiate these complexities and identify strategic priorities attuned to local realities. A pivotal milestone was the collaborative collection and modelling of detailed energy data for Drumul Taberei’s housing stock, performed in partnership with the University of Palermo and local authorities, augmented by resident surveys. This granular analysis informed spatial multi-criteria and energy demand assessments, revealing opportunities for retrofit and renewable integration while highlighting data and technical capacity gaps that the project team helped address through iterative refinement. The co-creation process further harnessed reflexive SWOT analyses and iterative feedback to integrate diverse community needs and perspectives into a shared, pragmatic long-term vision for the pilot district. Scenario development workshops articulated alternative energy futures, weighing trade-offs and synergies across technical solutions and social dynamics. Finally, the project team led the synthesis of the insights from the workshops into a dynamic and adaptive PED transformation roadmap, collaboratively designed to guide Drumul Taberei’s trajectory towards a potential fully functioning Positive Energy District. This strategic document embodies the interplay of technical innovation, social inclusion, and governance adaptation required for sustainable neighbourhood energy transitions. 4.2 Co-Creation Process and Strategic Outcomes in Bucharest The intensive co-creation process carried out over a two-year period generated a wealth of requirements, data, and knowledge, all of which were consolidated into the final strategic document titled the “Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda for Drumul Taberei.” This strategy represents a significant step toward making Positive Energy District (PED) objectives more attainable within the local context. From both research and local impact perspectives, the KINETIC project in Bucharest’s Sector 6 has been a notable success. It addressed key themes such as energy communities, high-performance energy transitions, community needs assessment, and the active involvement of homeowners’ associations in neighborhood transformation decision-making. These themes are priorities not only for Sector 6 but also resonate with many other Romanian cities. The project’s open and participatory approach has demonstrated particular relevance for transforming typical block neighborhoods throughout Romania, a process greatly facilitated by the Sector 6 City Hall’s involvement in the 100 Climate Neutral Cities mission. The KINETIC project occurred at a critical moment, being among the few local and national initiatives tackling essential issues that have potential to influence future investments and legislation. These include: Renovation of the Building Stock: Approximately 70% of multifamily residential buildings in Bucharest remain unrenovated. Achieving the city’s climate neutrality target by 2035 necessitates extensive renovations to enhance energy efficiency. KINETIC provided vital data on the impact of renovations across key building archetypes. Local Energy Communities: While secondary legislation and operational procedures for energy communities are still under development nationally, KINETIC equipped Sector 6 City Hall with concrete solutions and data to support the implementation of such communities, aligned with local strategies and the outcomes of the co-creation process. Beyond the strategic outcome embodied in the “Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda for 2050 for Drumul Taberei,” which aims to coordinate long-term investments and promote a novel approach to planning the regeneration and transformation of block neighborhoods, KINETIC also fostered the creation of a dynamic and effective network of local partnerships during its implementation phase. Notable developments include: Contributions to ongoing initiatives: KINETIC informed the SMART6 energy transition strategy for the entire district and the Mission 100 Cities platform, providing inspiration, empirical data, and references essential for the development of green energy and digitalization measures within SMART6. Catalyzing new research and innovation projects: Building on KINETIC’s findings, several projects have emerged, including: SET-PED (funded under DUT): This project assesses the impact of multifamily housing renovations using eco-friendly methods and repurposing construction materials for smart urban furniture equipped with energy components. FAVORIT+ (financed under the European Innovation Union 3rd call): An innovative urban energy transition project focusing on integrating flexible renewable energy systems, supported by AI-driven digital twins to optimize energy production and simulate pilot replication at the sectoral level. The intensive co-creation process in Bucharest’s Sector 6 has proven instrumental in bridging research and local practice, yielding actionable data, strengthened stakeholder networks, and a shared strategic vision for energy transition. By integrating diverse perspectives and fostering collaboration across institutional and community actors, the KINETIC project has not only advanced the feasibility of Positive Energy Districts in Drumul Taberei but also contributed to broader urban sustainability objectives relevant across Romania. The resulting Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda provides a robust foundation for aligning future investments, legislative efforts, and participatory governance models, thereby setting a precedent for transformative urban energy initiatives in similar contexts. 5. Copenhagen Case Study: Urban and Energy Transition Context Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is situated on the eastern coast of the island of Zealand and partially on Amager Island, with a metropolitan population of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants. Renowned for its ambitious sustainability agenda, the city has positioned itself as a global leader in climate action and urban energy transition (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013; Karnøe & Jensen, 2016. The city’s urban development has been strongly influenced by integrated planning frameworks that emphasize renewable energy adoption, carbon neutrality, and sustainable mobility, culminating in its goal to become carbon neutral by 2025 - a milestone enshrined in its Copenhagen Climate Plan (City of Copenhagen, 2020). Copenhagen’s compact urban form, extensive cycling infrastructure, and high-quality public transport networks complement its energy transition ambitions, promoting a holistic approach to sustainability (Geels et al., 2017; Amer et al., 2019). Denmark’s energy transition pathway, with Copenhagen as a focal point, is marked by a progressive shift away from fossil fuels towards wind power, district heating, and smart grid technologies (Lauber & Jacobsson, 2016; Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015). The city’s decentralized energy systems - particularly the extensive district heating network - have been critical in reducing carbon emissions and integrating renewable sources (Hvelplund, 2013; Lund et al., 2022). Recent scholarship has increasingly highlighted the central role of participatory governance and energy communities in Copenhagen’s energy transition. Copenhagen’s municipality has transitioned from a regulatory body to an active enabler (Hofstad et al., 2022) providing regulatory support and embedding energy communities within city climate strategies. This aligns who describe Copenhagen’s urban living labs and energy communities as experimental arenas fostering social, technological, and institutional innovation, thereby embodying principles of experimentalist governance and participatory sustainability (Wittmayer et al., 2020; Hoffmann & Munthe-Kaas, 2020). Scholars have further illustrated Copenhagen’s municipal strategies in fostering energy communities, underscoring the importance of flexible governance structures that accommodate local social dynamics (Gorroño-Albizu et al., 2019). Challenges related to balancing local autonomy with broader policy frameworks echo the governance complexities identified in PED development processes. Complement this perspective multi-level governance analyses, highlighting Copenhagen’s integration of top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives as critical for adaptive and collaborative urban energy transitions (Hansen & Agger, 2023). The co-evolution of renewable energy technologies and active citizen participation is well documented by scholars (e.g. Devine-Wright, 2008; Sovacool & Lakshmi Ratan, 2012; von Wirth et al., 2018) who argue that Copenhagen’s success stems from intertwining technological innovation with social acceptance and community engagement. Research has also expanded on this by showcasing Copenhagen’s “Smart Energy City” model (Lund et al., 2023; Preece, 2024) which integrates smart grids and energy communities to enhance urban energy management, efficiency, and empowerment. Finally, scholars underscore the foundational role of energy democracy in Copenhagen, examining participatory mechanisms that enable citizen influence over energy policymaking (Sovacool & Blyth, 2015; Hvelplund, 2013; Jørgensen & Elle, 2018). This emphasis on inclusive governance and co-creation resonates strongly with the KINETIC project’s approach to Positive Energy Districts, highlighting the city’s commitment to socially just and effective energy transitions. 5.1 Applying the Co-Creation Roadmap to Copenhagen The implementation of the KINETIC co-creation roadmap in Copenhagen unfolded within a complex urban and institutional context characterized by ambitious climate goals, an established district heating system, and a multifaceted regulatory environment. Public housing associations, managing substantial residential portfolios and often serving disadvantaged neighborhoods, emerged as key actors, particularly in addressing social equity within the energy transition. The project team initiated the process by mapping and engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including municipal departments, housing associations (such as Boligforeningen AAB, Boligselskabet KAB, and Boligselskabet Sjælland), academic institutions like Aalborg University, utility companies, and civil society organizations. This coalition reflected Copenhagen’s diverse institutional energy governance configuration and established the foundation for collaborative exploration of local energy community potentials. Despite municipal solar PV projects and citizen energy communities such as Avedøre Green City illustrating local innovation, many planned initiatives in neighborhoods like Bavnehøj, Nordvest, Sydhavnen, and Nordhavn remain unrealized due to persistent regulatory challenges and utility monopolies. Through a series of workshops facilitated by the project team, energy experts identified critical priorities, including energy efficiency, renewable energy adoption, sustainable urban development, and transportation. Housing associations were recognized as pivotal organizational intermediaries capable of leveraging their extensive housing stock to drive Positive Energy District transformations. Nevertheless, significant legal and organizational barriers, especially in light of the 2023 Electricity Supply Act, complicate self-consumption models and energy sharing, necessitating innovative governance strategies and robust partnerships. Guided by the co-creation roadmap, stakeholders pursued multiple pathways to advance PED development: optimizing existing heating systems within cadastral boundaries, navigating legislative barriers via structured dialogues and improved data infrastructure, partnering with utilities for heat integration, and repurposing underutilized public spaces for solar energy generation. The Bavnehøj district emerged as a critical site demonstrating both opportunities and systemic obstacles. Subsequent workshops led by the project team delved into the technical and economic dimensions of electricity and heating within public housing. Findings highlighted a fragmented electricity system with tenants as isolated consumers under monopoly control, contrasted with more centralized yet constrained district heating systems managed by housing associations. Tenant behavior, renovation efforts, and smart metering were identified as key levers for enhancing energy efficiency. The strategic visioning process revealed a strong aspiration among housing associations to cultivate collaborative forums for knowledge exchange while confronting complex legal and regulatory challenges. Although solar photovoltaic technology remains highly favored, concerns were raised that it may overshadow the more impactful potential of heating system upgrades. The roadmap delineates a phased approach—from immediate operational measures to integrated long-term strategies—requiring systemic regulatory reforms and collective governance beyond the capacities of individual housing associations 5.2 The Co-Creation Process and the Strategic Outcomes in Copenhagen The co-creation process in Copenhagen unfolded through a series of iterative workshops and stakeholder engagements that brought together public housing associations, municipal authorities, academic researchers, utility providers, and community representatives. This collaborative approach, structured around the co-creation roadmap, facilitated comprehensive dialogue addressing the complex technical, regulatory, and social challenges inherent in developing Positive Energy Districts (PEDs). Through this process, a shared understanding of both opportunities and constraints emerged, laying the groundwork for collective action. The Copenhagen PED urban living lab focused on the Bavnehøj neighborhood within the Kongens Enghave district, a spatially compact area of approximately 0.39 km² inhabited by roughly 4,000 residents. Bavnehøj serves as a significant example of socio-economic heterogeneity, against the more affluent neighboring Holmene , thereby situating the local energy transition within a broader context of income disparity and social differentiation. Stakeholders’ engagement strategies have prioritized raising awareness and eliciting expert insights concerning critical issues such as energy efficiency, evolving legislative frameworks, and the organizational capacities of housing associations. Experts emphasized the essential role of collaborative governance models, active community participation, and advanced energy management systems as foundational enablers for the success of Local Energy Communities (LECs). Building on these foundations, subsequent scenario-building exercises positioned housing associations as pivotal intermediaries capable of catalyzing PED transformations while simultaneously confronting pervasive legal ambiguities, data accessibility limitations, and a fragmented local energy market. Detailed technical and organizational analyses uncovered complex regulatory monopolies and infrastructural barriers that constrain local energy sharing and complicate collective self-consumption practices. These findings underscore the urgent need for regulatory reform and innovative governance arrangements to fully unlock the potential of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs). Emerging development priorities from the co-creation activities demonstrated strong stakeholders support for expanding rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installations, despite legislative challenges. Concurrently, participants of the workshops highlighted significant energy-saving potentials through heating system optimization and renovation, further supported by advancements in smart metering aligned with European Union directives. The final co-design workshops consolidated these insights into a strategic vision advocating a phased approach to PED development, beginning with immediate operational measures such as integrating solar production with communal facilities, and progressing towards more ambitious, long-term objectives involving cross-property energy sharing and multi-sector integration. This vision foregrounds the critical necessity for legal and regulatory transformation, alongside sustained multi-stakeholder collaboration. Collectively, the Copenhagen co-creation experience generated actionable insights and strategic roadmaps that are finely attuned to local socio-technical contexts. It also fostered trust, capacity building, and a shared commitment among diverse actors, exemplifying the transformative potential of structured, inclusive governance frameworks to overcome systemic barriers and advance socially just, environmentally sustainable urban energy transitions. 6. Lessons from Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts in Bucharest and Copenhagen: Key Factors for Effective PED Strategies The experiences of the KINETIC project in Bucharest and Copenhagen offer valuable insights into the complex conditions and dynamic processes that underpin effective co-creation of Positive Energy District (PED) strategies in diverse contexts. Together, these learnings affirm that impactful co-creation for PED strategies depends on adaptive, contextually embedded governance processes that integrate technical innovation with inclusive social practices and proactive regulatory engagement. This integration is most important to provide guidance for future projects aiming to harness the transformative potential of PEDs in diverse urban contexts. A critical foundation is the meaningful engagement of diverse stakeholders spanning municipal authorities, housing associations, utility providers, civil society, academia, and local residents. Building and sustaining inclusive governance networks fosters trust, facilitates the sharing of knowledge, and enhances the legitimacy of PED processes. Tailoring engagement approaches to align with local institutional cultures and actor readiness proves essential for maintaining commitment and sustained participation throughout the co-creation journey. The co-creation roadmap emerges not merely as a procedural guide but as a flexible governance and methodological architecture . Its phased and iterative design accommodates ongoing learning and the integration of technical, social, and policy dimensions, while reflexive feedback loops ensure responsiveness to evolving local conditions and stakeholder expectations. Navigating complex legal and regulatory landscapes remains a formidable challenge. Successful PED co-creation processes incorporate proactive strategies that include ongoing dialogue with policymakers, scenario-based visioning anticipating legislative shifts, and harmonization of local initiatives with broader regulatory frameworks. Understanding constraints such as the complex of utilities path-dependencies, monopolies and data governance regimes allows for grounded and realistic planning. Moreover, co-creation serves as a vital platform for capacity building . Through stakeholders’ participation in technical workshops, scenario planning exercises, and joint data analysis, co-creation fosters the development of analytical skills and collective intelligence. The co-creation process empowers participants to actively influence PED development and facilitates the progression from conceptual planning to practical implementation. A commitment to social equity and local relevance is paramount. Explicitly integrating socio-economic diversity and community needs strengthens the social legitimacy and sustainability impact of PED strategies. The focused attention on neighborhoods like Bavnehøj in Copenhagen and Drumul Taberei in Bucharest underscores the necessity of contextualizing interventions to address specific local realities and promote inclusive outcomes. Finally, balancing long-term sustainability ambitions with actionable short-term steps proves vital. The phased co-creation process identified immediate initiatives - such as rooftop solar projects and stakeholder alignment - while progressively advancing systemic transformations that encompass regulatory reform and integrated energy sharing, thereby sustaining momentum and collective engagement. Collectively, these lessons affirm that meaningful co-creation for PED strategies depends on adaptive, contextually grounded governance processes that weave together technical innovation, inclusive social practices, and proactive regulatory engagement. These insights offer essential guidance for future endeavors aiming to unlock the transformative potential of Positive Energy Districts across diverse urban contexts. Table 1. Co-creation processes for Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) – Learning points from Bucharest and Copenhagen Dimension Bucharest Copenhagen Lessons Learned Stakeholder Engagement Broad engagement including local authorities, NGOs, academia, utilities, housing associations, and residents; adapted to fragmented governance. Inclusive coalition of public housing associations, municipal departments, utilities, academia, and civil society; strong intermediary role of housing orgs Successful co-creation requires inclusive, multi-level stakeholder engagement tailored to local institutional contexts and existing networks Governance Framework Adaptive co-creation roadmap facilitating iterative learning, reflexivity, and contextual adaptation; strong focus on local collaboration. Flexible governance architecture enabling iterative feedback, scenario building, and legal navigation; emphasis on capacity building within housing sector. Flexible, context-sensitive governance frameworks that support iterative learning and reflexivity are key to managing complexity and uncertainty. Regulatory Challenges Complex legal landscape; challenges around energy sharing, ownership, and enabling Local Energy Communities; need for regulatory dialogue and reform. Restrictive legislation on electricity sharing, grid monopolies, and legal grey zones; difficulty in enabling collective self-consumption. Proactive engagement with legal frameworks and policymakers is essential to overcome regulatory barriers that constrain PED development. Technical & Data Capacity Data limitations managed through partnerships (e.g., University of Palermo); spatial and energy data collection critical for modelling and planning. Detailed analysis of heating and electricity systems; constrained by monopolized data access and technical challenges in heat and electricity management. Building analytical capacity and ensuring data accessibility are fundamental to informed decision-making and realistic scenario development. Community and Social Focus Emphasis on combating energy poverty, fostering energy democracy, and empowering citizens; localized strategies attentive to socio-economic diversity. Focus on social housing organizations as intermediaries; importance of community empowerment balanced with technical and regulatory constraints. Co-creation processes must integrate social equity and local relevance to ensure just and sustainable energy transitions. Strategic Outcomes Development of an “Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda” aligning investments and planning for block neighborhood regeneration. Phased vision emphasizing solar integration, heating optimization, legal reform, and multi-sector collaboration; focus on operational and systemic change. Strategic roadmaps that balance short-term actionable steps with long-term transformative goals foster momentum and stakeholder commitment. Capacity Building & Trust Co-creation fostered trust among stakeholders and enhanced local capacities for energy transition planning and collaboration. Process enhanced knowledge, trust, and commitment among diverse actors, enabling ongoing dialogue despite systemic barriers. Trust-building and capacity development are critical for sustaining engagement and enabling adaptive governance over time. 7. Conclusion: Co-Creation as Experimental Governance in PED Transitions This article has explored how co-creation processes can effectively facilitate the conceptualisation and strategic planning of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) as forms of experimental governance across diverse urban contexts. Grounded in theoretical frameworks of urban experimentation (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013; Evans et al., 2016), co-creation (Voorberg et al., 2015; Ansell & Torfing, 2021), reflexive governance (Bevir, 2013; Hajer, 2009), and transformative capacity (Kemp et al., 2017; Wolfram, 2019), co-creation is understood as an iterative, participatory framework that promotes alignment among stakeholders, collaborative knowledge production, and adaptive planning amid uncertainty. A central insight from the KINETIC project is the critical role of the co-creation roadmap as a structured methodological architecture orchestrating multi-stakeholder engagement (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Steen & van Bueren, 2017). This roadmap facilitates collaborative knowledge generation, reflexive governance, and context-sensitive strategic planning. It guided the project team through phased participatory activities, enabling exploration of local energy transition pathways with diverse stakeholders and co-design of actionable, contextually grounded visions. The facilitation by the KINETIC team—whose situated reflexivity (Finlay, 2002; Bisschops & Beunen, 2019) critically shaped power relations and dialogue—was essential for sustaining trust, negotiating tensions, and bridging technical and social dimensions of PED development (Bradwell & Marr, 2008; Ansell & Torfing, 2021). The co-creation processes highlight the necessity of dual-track governance - the dynamic interplay between top-down policy frameworks and bottom-up community-driven initiatives (Grin, 2010). Effective PED governance requires simultaneous mobilisation of institutional actors and grassroots stakeholders, ensuring governance is neither solely imposed by authorities nor entirely emergent from local communities, but unfolds through continuous negotiation and mutual adaptation across governance scales. Drawing on empirical evidence from Bucharest and Copenhagen, this study advances the understanding of PEDs as socio-technical and political endeavours characterised by ongoing negotiation and critical reflexivity (Smith & Stirling, 2013). The co-creation roadmap emerges as a flexible governance instrument mediating diverse stakeholders, institutional logics, and regulatory complexities, fostering transformative capacity vital for just and effective urban energy transitions. Nevertheless, challenges persist. The inherently experimental nature of PED governance generates uncertainties and provisional outcomes that complicate scaling and institutionalisation. Complex regulatory frameworks and entrenched power asymmetries among stakeholders demand sustained political commitment and adaptive capacities, which vary across contexts and actors (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Meadowcroft, 2009). The persistent tension between technocratic imperatives for energy efficiency and aspirations for inclusive, democratic urban futures remains a delicate balance (Jasanoff, 2010; Agyeman, 2013). As demonstrated in Bucharest and Copenhagen, without explicit prioritisation of social inclusion and equity, co-creation risks reproducing existing inequalities, particularly in socio-economically diverse neighbourhoods. These findings underscore the imperative of sustained situated and critical reflexivity in both research and practice (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Schön, 1979). This entails encouraging scholars and practitioners to continually interrogate who benefits from PED transitions, how governance innovations evolve, and which mechanisms best support just and resilient urban energy transformations. Lessons from Bucharest and Copenhagen reveal that meaningful co-creation depends on inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement, flexible and context-sensitive methodological frameworks such as the co-creation roadmap, proactive navigation of legal and institutional barriers, and facilitation attentive to power dynamics and local realities. Ultimately, this research contributes to the evolving discourse on experimental governance in sustainability transitions by demonstrating how carefully structured and reflexively facilitated co-creation process - embedded within dual-track governance processes - can cultivate new capacities for transformative urban energy pathways that are both socially just and technically robust. Declarations Author Contribution E.L and J.I prepared the Copenhagen component of the case studyC.P, A.D, A.L prepared the Bucharest component of the study.P.E and E.L reviewed the entire case study and elaborated conclusions.C.P and E.L coordinated the article composition. Acknowledgement Daniele Vettorato (Eurac Research), Francesco Guarino (University of Palermo), Alberto Brunetti (University of Palermo) References Agyeman, J. (2013). Introducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice . Zed Books Ltd.. Amer, S. B., Bramstoft, R., Balyk, O., & Nielsen, P. S. (2019). Modelling the future low-carbon energy systems-case study of greater Copenhagen, Denmark. International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management , 24 . Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory , 18 (4), 543-571. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy . Cambridge University Press. Arnold, R. D., and J. P. Wade. 2015. A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678. Bisschops, S., & Beunen, R. (2019). A new role for citizens’ initiatives: The difficulties in co-creating institutional change in urban planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(1), 72–87. Bradwell, P., & Marr, S. (2008). Making the most of collaboration: an international survey of public service co-design, Demos Report 23. DEMOS, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) Public Sector Research Centre, London . Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-creation and co-production in public services: Urgent issues in practice and research. In Co-production and co-creation (pp. 3-8). Routledge. Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public administration review , 73 (1), 23-34. Bulkeley, H. (2014). Transnational climate change governance . Cambridge University Press. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental politics , 22 (1), 136-154. Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the institute of British geographers , 38 (3), 361-375. Bulkeley, H., & Mol, A. P. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental values , 12 (2), 143-154. Bulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (Eds.). (2013). Cities and low carbon transitions . London: Routledge. Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., ... & Palgan, Y. V. (2016). Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. Current opinion in environmental sustainability , 22 , 13-17. Bylund, J. (2020). Joint programming for urban transformations: the making of the JPI Urban Europe Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. Urban Transformations , 2 (1), 10. Bylund, J., Riegler, J., & Wrangsten, C. (2022). Anticipating experimentation as the ‘the new normal’through urban living labs 2.0: lessons learnt by JPI Urban Europe. Urban Transformations , 4 (1), 8. Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23 (1), 92 102. City of Copenhagen (2020) Copenhagen Climate Plan . https://urbandevelopmentcph.kk.dk/climate (last access June 2025) Ciulla, G., Sessa, E., Brunetti, A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Cellura, M., ... & Papina, C. (2022) Towards Positive Energy District Assessment: The Case Study of Bucharest. Available at SSRN 5133244 . Ciulla, G., Sessa, E., Brunetti, A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Cellura, M., ... & Papina, C. Towards Positive Energy District Assessment: The Case Study of Bucharest. Available at SSRN 5133244 . Clerici Maestosi, P. (2024) Harmonizing Urban Innovation: Exploring the Nexus between Smart Cities and Positive Energy Districts. Energies (19961073) , 17 (14). Cousins, J. B., and Whitmore, E. (1998) Framing Participatory Evaluation.” In E. Whitmore (ed.), Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 80. San Francisco. Dabija, A. M., & Nicolae, I. (2020). A Sustainable Approach Towards Energy Savings in the Cities of Romania, Bucharest: A Case Study. Energy Efficient Building Design , 233-248. Derkenbaeva, E., Vega, S. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Van Leeuwen, E. (2022). Positive energy districts: Mainstreaming energy transition in urban areas. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 153 , 111782. Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. Delivering a low carbon electricity system: technologies, economics and policy , 1-15. Dragomir, A. M., Papina, C. L., Lazăr, A. C., & Guarino, F. (2024, October). Transformation Pathways: Drumul Taberei Neighbourhood-a Positive Energy District?. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1402, No. 1, p. 012009). IOP Publishing. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban transformation. In The experimental city (pp. 1-12). Routledge. Evans, J., Vácha, T., Kok, H., & Watson, K. (2021). How cities learn: From experimentation to transformation. Urban Planning , 6 (1), 171-182. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative research , 2 (2), 209-230. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again . Cambridge university press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry , 12 (2), 219-245. Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental science & policy , 93 , 101-111. Gall, T., Carbonari, G., Wyckmans, A., & Ahlers, D. (2020). Co-Creating Local Energy Transitions Through Smart Cities: Piloting a Prosumer-Oriented Approach. Review of World Planning Practice. Volume 16: Post-Oil Urbanism . Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research policy , 33 (6-7), 897-920. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science , 357 (6357), 1242-1244. Genus, A., & Theobald, K. (2016). Creating low-carbon neighbourhoods: a critical discourse analysis. European Urban and Regional Studies , 23 (4), 782-797. Glück, S. (2023). Energy Research Governance in the European Union (Doctoral dissertation, Zeppelin Universität). Gorroño-Albizu, L., Sperling, K., & Djørup, S. (2019). The past, present and uncertain future of community energy in Denmark: Critically reviewing and conceptualising citizen ownership. Energy Research & Social Science , 57 , 101231. Grin, J. (2020). ‘Doing’system innovations from within the heart of the regime. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 22 (5), 682-694. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change . Routledge. Hajer, M. A. (2005). Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acid rain to BSE. In Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 297-315). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Hansen, K. B., & Agger, A. (2023). Copenhagen CO2 neutrality in 2025? A polycentric analysis of urban climate governance in Copenhagen 2006–2020. Environmental Policy and Governance , 33 (3), 288-300. Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and planning A , 30 (9), 1531-1546. Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2017). The mutual construction of urban retrofit and scale: Governing ON, IN and WITH in Greater Manchester. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space , 35 (7), 1198-1217. Hoffmann, B., & Munthe-Kaas, P. (2020). Staging urban design through experimentation. In Staging Collaborative Design and Innovation (pp. 215-230). Edward Elgar Publishing. Hofstad, H., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., & Vedeld, T. (2022) Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co‐creation from Copenhagen and Oslo. Environmental Policy and Governance , 32 (3), 203-216. Hughes, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2020). Just urban transitions: Toward a research agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change , 11 (3), e640. Hvelplund, F. (2013). Innovative democracy, political economy, and the transition to renewable energy. A full-scale experiment in Denmark 1976-2013. Environmental research, engineering and management , 66 (4), 5-21. IEA (2020) Renewable Energy Market Update . http://www.socialacceptance.org/images/2009AR_Task28.pdf IRENA (2021). Renewable energy prospects: Romania. International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/publications/2021 Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, culture & society , 27 (2-3), 233-253. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power , 1-33. Jørgensen, U., & Elle, M. (2018). Energy district Sydhavn–: co-creation of energy transitions with citizens in the contexts of city and national politics. In Reconfiguring Consumption and Production Systems . JPI Urban Europe (2020). Driving urban transitions to a sustainable future: Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda . https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu Karnøe, P., & Jensen, J. S. (2016). Struggles in Denmark’s transition towards a low carbon future: Shifts in the energy technology assemblage. In Handbook of Transitions to Energy and Climate Security (pp. 391-412). Routledge. Karvonen, A., & Van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (2), 379–392.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12075 Kovács, Z. (2009). Social and economic transformation of historical neighbourhoods in Budapest. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie , 100 (4), 399-416. Krangsås, S. G., Steemers, K., Konstantinou, T., Soutullo, S., Liu, M., Giancola, E., ... & Maas, N. (2021). Positive energy districts: identifying challenges and interdependencies. Sustainability , 13 (19), 10551. Lauber, V., & Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and restricting socio-political space for renewables–The German Renewable Energy Act. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions , 18 , 147-163. Levenda, A. M. (2019). Mobilizing smart grid experiments: Policy mobilities and urban energy governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space , 37 (4), 634-651. Lissandrello, E. (2025). Power and knowledge: the legacy of educating professional planners – In Freudendal-Pedersen, M.; Galland, D, Iuel-Stissing, J. (Eds) Planning For Urban Sustainability (pp. 127-143). Elgar Books. Lissandrello, E. and Grin, J. (2011) Reflexive planning as design and work: Lessons from the port of Amsterdam. Planning Theory & Practice 12.2 (2011): 223-248 Lissandrello, E., Steffansen, R. N., & Nørgaard, L. S. (2023). Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New Normal Planning. In The ‘New Normal’in Planning, Governance and Participation: Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-pandemic World (pp. 15-26). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Lund, H., Mathiesen, B. V., Østergaard, P. A., & Brodersen, H. J. (2023). Book of Abstracts: 9th International Conference on Smart Energy Systems. In 9th International Conference on Smart Energy Systems . Aalborg Universitet. Lund, H., Skov, I. R., Thellufsen, J. Z., Sorknæs, P., Korberg, A. D., Chang, M., ... & Kany, M. S. (2022). The role of sustainable bioenergy in a fully decarbonised society. Renewable Energy , 196 , 195-203. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy sciences , 42 , 323-340. Mee, A., Lyes, M., & Crowe, P. (2021). Energy urbanity and active citizen participation. Energies , 14 (20), 6515. Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2009). Hydrogen's role in an uncertain energy future. international journal of hydrogen energy , 34 (1), 31-39. Nguyen, M. T., & Batel, S. (2024). Which energy citizenship in positive energy districts? A governmentality social psychological analysis of participatory governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 26 (1), 117-130. Parodi, O., Steglich, A., & Bylund, J. (2023). Real-world lab. Handbook transdisciplinary learning , 287-296.Petrache et al., 2018; Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2018) The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin. The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods , 345-358. Preece, C. (2024). Integrating Renewable Energy Systems into Urban Planning: A Pathway to Sustainable Cities. Sustainability Quest , 1 (1), 1-09. Rinkinen, J., Shove, E., & Smits, M. (2021). Conceptualising urban density, energy demand and social practice. Buildings & cities , 2 (1), 79-91. Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6 (1), 52–68. Sareen, S., Albert-Seifried, V., Aelenei, L., Reda, F., Etminan, G., Andreucci, M. B., ... & Neumann, H. M. (2022). Ten questions concerning positive energy districts. Sassenou, L. N., Olivieri, L., Kotnarovsky, G., Longo, D., & Olivieri, F. (2025). Companion modelling for energy transition: A participatory approach to design positive energy districts in Mediterranean cities. Energy Research & Social Science , 127 , 104175. Schön, D. A. (1979). The reflective practitioner. New York . Schön, D. A., & Argyris, C. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. SET-Plan Action 3.2. (2018) Implementation Plan: Smart Cities and Communities – Positive Energy Districts . European Commission. https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/setplan_smartcities_implementationplan-2.pdf Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and planning C: Government and policy , 30 (3), 381-400. Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2013). Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. In Governance for Sustainable Development (pp. 159-181). Routledge. Sovacool, B. K., & Blyth, P. L. (2015). Energy and environmental attitudes in the green state of Denmark: Implications for energy democracy, low carbon transitions, and energy literacy. Environmental Science & Policy , 54 , 304-315. Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied energy , 142 , 435-444.Spreco et al., 2022; Sovacool, B.K., Lakshmi Ratan, P., (2012) Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 5268–79. Stanescu, I., Manolescu, A., & Croitoru, C. (2025). The role of local energy communities to reduce carbon emissions in the urban built environment. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 608, p. 01005). EDP Sciences. Stanilov, K. (Ed.). (2007). The post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism (Vol. 92). Springer Science & Business Media. Steen, K., & Van Bueren, E. (2017). The defining characteristics of urban living labs. Technology innovation management review , 7 (7). Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 33 (2), 262-294. Surubaru, N. C., & Nitoiu, C. (2021). One decade onwards: assessing the impact of European Union membership on Bulgaria and Romania. European Politics and Society , 22 (2), 161-166. Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F. W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., & van Vuuren, D. (2015). Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environmental Change, 35 , 239–253. 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 , 43 , 666-675. Vennix, J. A., Akkermans, H. A., & Rouwette, E. A. (1996). Group model‐building to facilitate organizational change: an exploratory study. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society , 12 (1), 39-58. Vlados, C. (2019). On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management , 12 (3), 347-363. Voicu-Dorobanțu, R., Volintiru, C., Popescu, M. F., Nerău, V., & Ștefan, G. (2021). Tackling complexity of the just transition in the EU: Evidence from Romania. Energies , 14 (5), 1509. von Wirth, T., Gislason, L., Seidl, R., 2018. Distributed energy systems on a neighbourhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 2618–2628. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review , 17 (9), 1333-1357. Voß, J. P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive government: introduction. In Reflexive governance for sustainable development . Edward Elgar Publishing. Wittmayer, J. M., de Geus, T., Pel, B., Avelino, F., Hielscher, S., Hoppe, T., ... & Härtwig, A. (2020). Beyond instrumentalism: Broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems. Energy research & social science , 70 , 101689. Wolfram, M. (2019). Learning urban energy governance for system innovation: an assessment of transformative capacity development in three South Korean cities. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 21 (1), 30-45. Wolfram, M., Borgström, S., & Farrelly, M. (2019). Urban transformative capacity: From concept to practice. Ambio , 48 , 437-448. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods . Sage publications. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 13 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 14 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 29 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 19 Jun, 2025 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-6930084","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Case Report","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":487953616,"identity":"4d616943-51c9-4ce1-9f67-c53fe053a08a","order_by":0,"name":"Enza Lissandrello","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Aalborg University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Enza","middleName":"","lastName":"Lissandrello","suffix":""},{"id":487953617,"identity":"7cfd86bb-f3e8-4985-8d9d-fdea73d557cc","order_by":1,"name":"Codrut Papina","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Urbasofia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Codrut","middleName":"","lastName":"Papina","suffix":""},{"id":487953618,"identity":"65b490de-9bd8-41b1-9c43-20e7a027c427","order_by":2,"name":"Pietro Elisei","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Urbasofia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pietro","middleName":"","lastName":"Elisei","suffix":""},{"id":487953619,"identity":"07dd3743-eb0a-4f45-a9fa-bffdd3077a60","order_by":3,"name":"Jens Iuel-Stissing","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Aalborg University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jens","middleName":"","lastName":"Iuel-Stissing","suffix":""},{"id":487953620,"identity":"57490c29-f49e-433d-8be0-e2b3086b8a10","order_by":4,"name":"Ana Dragomir","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Urbasofia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ana","middleName":"","lastName":"Dragomir","suffix":""},{"id":487953621,"identity":"edcf3f8b-4a9b-4ea7-b1b7-a1061fb9be34","order_by":5,"name":"Adelin Lazar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Urbasofia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adelin","middleName":"","lastName":"Lazar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-19 10:08:29","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6930084/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6930084/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87344490,"identity":"44bd56ba-b124-482a-abe6-1b18d1d5a3a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 02:03:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":543043,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePositive Energy Districts (PEDs) operate as embedded, multi-dimensional experiments in sustainable urban transitions (figure own production)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6930084/v1/b1272067e0d6e21f7d6181f3.png"},{"id":87344491,"identity":"f2631ce8-de30-4d4d-af11-09ad3da4ccd0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 02:03:02","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2685882,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe KINETIC Co-creation Roadmap for Positive Energy Districts (PEDs)\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e(figure own production)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Parma (mentioned in the figure) has been a reference case and not considered in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"KINETIC1Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6930084/v1/641c42b89c4e7943c4c7acf6.jpg"},{"id":87345695,"identity":"264aa87d-838a-42a6-9ba9-546931cd163b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-23 02:19:02","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4472981,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6930084/v1/6688c5d9-d692-4c92-84cf-08f69e7f5b43.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts: Experimental Governance and Transformative Capacity in Bucharest and Copenhagen","fulltext":[{"header":"Science highlights","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment of a Structured Co-Creation Roadmap:\u003c/strong\u003e This study introduces an innovative, iterative methodological framework that facilitates multi-stakeholder engagement, collaborative knowledge production, and adaptive strategic planning in the governance of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) under conditions of uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDual-Track Governance as a Core Principle:\u003c/strong\u003e The findings emphasise that effective PED governance depends on the dynamic interplay between top-down institutional policy frameworks and bottom-up community-driven initiatives, underscoring the importance of continuous negotiation across different governance scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmbedding Reflexive Governance in Co-Creation:\u003c/strong\u003e The research illustrates how reflexive governance, operationalised through participatory co-creation processes, promotes stakeholder empowerment, trust-building, and adaptive capacity necessary to navigate complex socio-technical and regulatory contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCritical Attention to Institutional Barriers and Social Equity:\u003c/strong\u003e The article draws attention to enduring challenges stemming from regulatory monopolies, power asymmetries, and socio-economic inequalities, highlighting the imperative for explicit prioritisation of equity and inclusion to avoid perpetuating existing disparities within PED transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePolicy and practice recommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFoster Inclusive Stakeholder Collaboration:\u003c/strong\u003e As demonstrated in this article\u0026rsquo;s case studies of Bucharest and Copenhagen, broad engagement of municipal bodies, housing associations, utilities, civil society, and residents - particularly in socio-economically diverse communities - is essential to legitimise and sustain Positive Energy District initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdopt Flexible and Reflexive Governance Approaches:\u003c/strong\u003e The co-creation roadmap presented in the article exemplifies how adaptive, iterative frameworks can facilitate continuous learning and collaborative decision-making, enhancing responsiveness to local contexts and evolving challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnable Regulatory Reform for Local Energy Sharing:\u003c/strong\u003e The article highlights how existing legal and institutional constraints limit energy sharing and data access, calling for targeted policy reforms to enable decentralised, community-driven energy solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrioritise Social Equity and Inclusion:\u003c/strong\u003e Through its focus on disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the article underscores the importance of embedding social equity in PED strategies to prevent reinforcing existing inequalities and to promote just, resilient urban energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the context of urgent climate targets and the European Union\u0026rsquo;s ambition for climate-neutral cities by 2050, \u003cem\u003ePositive Energy Districts\u003c/em\u003e (PEDs) have emerged as a flagship strategy for reconfiguring energy systems at the district scale within broader urban transitions (JPI Urban Europe, 2020; SET-Plan Action 3.2, 2018). Anchored in the European Commission\u0026rsquo;s strategic energy planning agenda, PEDs aim to create neighbourhoods that produce more renewable energy than they consume on an annual basis through the integration of high-performance buildings, renewable energy technologies, digital platforms, and user-driven demand flexibility (Derkenbaeva, 2022; Gall et al., 2020). While initially framed as techno-economic innovations, PEDs are increasingly recognised as complex socio-technical assemblages that require coordination across spatial planning, governance innovation, and citizen engagement (Nguyen \u0026amp; Batel, 2024; von Wirth et al., 2021; Clerici Maestosi, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article contributes to the growing literature on \u003cem\u003eurban experimentation\u003c/em\u003e by approaching PEDs not merely as technical interventions, but as \u003cem\u003eurban governance experiments\u003c/em\u003e that unfold under conditions of uncertainty, indeterminacy, and contested urban futures (Evans et al., 2021; Karvonen \u0026amp; Van Heur, 2014; Parodi et al., 2023). Recent scholarship has highlighted how experimental approaches - pilots, living labs, and co-creation platforms - can generate transformative capacity by embedding reflexive practices in urban governance (Wolfram et al., 2019; Lissandrello et al., 2023). Yet, the actual mechanisms through which these experiments contribute to institutional learning, knowledge integration, and spatial justice remain insufficiently explored in the context of energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur empirical focus is the \u003cem\u003eKINETIC\u003c/em\u003e project (\u003cem\u003eKnowledge Integration for Neighbourhoods in Energy Transition\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eled by Inclusive Communities\u003c/em\u003e), a JPI Urban Europe initiative (2022\u0026ndash;2025). Within this project, we co-developed and tested an original \u003cem\u003eco-creation roadmap\u003c/em\u003e, a structured participatory process designed to facilitate dialogue and decision-making among public authorities, utilities, civil society organisations, and residents in neighbourhoods undergoing energy transition. Applied in the cities of Bucharest and Copenhagen, the roadmap operates as a governance tool for unpacking the spatial, social, and institutional complexity of PEDs. It supports collective exploration of how PEDs intersect with local priorities, historical path-dependencies, and infrastructure capacities, thereby reframing PEDs as levers for sustainable urban transformation, not just as end-goals of technological optimisation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-creation roadmap functions as a form of \u003cem\u003esituated experimentation\u003c/em\u003e that foregrounds process over prescription, embedding local knowledge and stakeholder perspectives into the early stages of PED conceptualisation. As such, it contributes to the broader debate on \u003cem\u003ehow urban experimentation mediates uncertainty, enables learning, and facilitates institutional adaptation\u003c/em\u003e (Vo\u0026szlig; \u0026amp; Kemp, 2006; Turnheim et al., 2015; Grin, 2020). Rather than viewing experimentation as a bounded trial, we frame it as an unfolding governance mode\u0026mdash;one that can produce new relationships, forms of knowledge, and capacities for long-term transition. This article explores the following research question: \u003cem\u003eHow does co-creation mapping, as a situated experimental practice, shape governance reflexivity and transformative capacity in the development of Positive Energy Districts?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis question responds directly to the special issue\u0026rsquo;s call to unpack the governance implications of urban experimentation in the context of sustainability and climate action. By analysing how the KINETIC roadmap experiment unfolds across the two cases of Bucharest and Copenhagen, we aim to contribute to current debates on urban transformative capacity, participatory governance, and the experimental turn in planning practice. We argue that PEDs, when approached through reflexive, co-creative methods, can function as catalysts for institutional innovation and spatial justice, but also reveal persistent tensions between technocratic energy logics and inclusive urban governance across different urban contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe article proceeds as follows. Section 2 introduces the conceptual framework of urban experimentation, focusing on reflexivity, uncertainty, and transformative governance. Section 3 outlines the research design and methodology. Section 4 presents the empirical analysis of the KINETIC project in Bucharest and Copenhagen. Section 5 discusses how co-creation mapping contributes to experimental governance logics \u003cem\u003eacross the two cases.\u003c/em\u003e The article concludes by reflecting on the role of PEDs in expanding urban transformative capacity under conditions of systemic indeterminacy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Conceptual Framework: Urban Experimentation, Reflexivity, and Transformative Capacity","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe emergence of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) as instruments of urban sustainability reflects a broader shift in planning and governance towards experimental forms of intervention. Urban experimentation has become central to how cities navigate the complexities of climate change, energy transitions, and institutional adaptation (Evans et al., 2021; Karvonen \u0026amp; Van Heur, 2014). Defined as place-based practices through which new ways of knowing and doing are tested in real-world settings (Bulkeley et al., 2016), urban experimentation is increasingly seen as a response to the indeterminacy of contemporary urban challenges, providing both a means to act amid uncertainty and a process of \u0026lsquo;learning by doing\u0026rsquo; (Parodi et al., 2023; Sch\u0026ouml;n \u0026amp; Argyris, 1996).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than being confined to discrete pilots or technical trials, experimentation is increasingly institutionalised as a governance mode (Vo\u0026szlig; \u0026amp; Kemp, 2006). This mode is characterised by iterative learning, reflexivity, and the provisional reconfiguration of roles, rules, and responsibilities. In the context of PEDs, this means rethinking the implementation of energy systems not only as infrastructural projects but as socially embedded and politically negotiated processes. Urban experimentation, in this view, is not a neutral tool but a contested field that can both reinforce and disrupt existing power relations (Cast\u0026aacute;n Broto \u0026amp; Bulkeley, 2013; Lissandrello et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA central concern in recent literature is how experimentation contributes to transformative capacity - the ability of urban systems to engage with structural change through anticipatory, inclusive, and adaptive strategies (Wolfram et al., 2019). Transformative capacity depends on more than technological innovation; it requires institutional openness, cross-sectoral collaboration, and attention to social justice and inclusion (Turnheim et al., 2015; Bylund et al., 2022). PEDs, while often driven by performance indicators and policy targets, provide a unique context for testing whether such capacities can be fostered through collaborative and reflexive planning practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne key mechanism for enabling transformative governance is co-creation, which in this article refers to participatory and knowledge-integrative processes that bring together diverse stakeholders, including municipal authorities, residents, civil society organisations, and energy providers, into the early stages of design and decision-making (Ansell \u0026amp; Torfing, 2021; Frantzeskaki, 2019). Co-creation challenges hierarchical modes of planning by recognising the situated expertise of stakeholders and the need for dialogic knowledge production. As a practice of urban experimentation, co-creation is inherently political: it shapes what problems are made visible, whose knowledge counts, and which futures are rendered thinkable (Rydin, 2007; Healey, 1998; Lissandrello, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, we draw on the notion of\u0026nbsp;reflexive governance, which emphasises the need to adapt governing practices in light of emerging uncertainties, feedback, and unintended effects (Vo\u0026szlig; \u0026amp; Kemp, 2006; Lissandrello \u0026amp; Grin, 2011). In energy planning, reflexivity requires an ability to question assumptions, revise strategies, and incorporate new insights over time. The co-creation roadmap developed in the KINETIC project embodies this reflexive logic: it functions as a spatial and procedural device that enables stakeholders to explore, contest, and reframe the role of PEDs within ongoing urban transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these concepts of urban experimentation, co-creation, transformative capacity, and reflexive governance form the analytical framework through which we examine the empirical cases of the PED co-creation in Bucharest and Copenhagen (Figure 1). Rather than evaluating PEDs solely through technical metrics, we investigate how PED as an experimental practice shaped by relational, institutional, and epistemic dimensions of sustainable urban transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSustainable transitions pathways (Geels, 2004; Bulkeley \u0026amp; Cast\u0026aacute;n Broto, 2013) often follow diversified and enabling bottom-up practices (Seyfang \u0026amp; Haxeltine, 2012; Van der Schoor \u0026amp; Scholtens, 2015). Recent studies stress the need for reflexive governance and co-creation to navigate uncertainties and power dynamics inherent in local transitions (Hughes \u0026amp; Hoffmann, 2020; Hodson \u0026amp; Marvin, 2017). This aligns with our focus on co-creation as a governance method to support adaptive and socially just PED strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eQualitative exploratory case study approaches have gained traction in Positive Energy District (PED) research, complementing traditional technical and modelling studies by examining the socio-political, governance, and participatory dimensions of PED development (Nguyen, \u0026amp; Batel, 2024; Wolfram, 2019; Krangs\u0026aring;s et al., 2021). These methods are particularly valuable for investigating PEDs as complex socio-technical experiments embedded within diverse urban contexts, where understanding stakeholder dynamics, institutional arrangements, and co-creation processes is crucial for successful implementation and transition. Building on this growing body of work, this article employs a qualitative, exploratory embedded case study design (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Piekkari \u0026amp; Welch, 2018) that focuses on the processes and governance mechanisms shaping the potential realisation of PEDs, rather than analysing fully implemented districts. The study examines PEDs as \u003cem\u003esituated urban experiments\u003c/em\u003e in their formative stages through co-creation practices, capturing how local actors engage with, shape, and negotiate the emerging pathways toward energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis emphasis on \u003cem\u003eprojectuality\u003c/em\u003e (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Lissandrello and Grin, 2011) enabled stakeholders to engage with PEDs as potential catalysts for change rather than fixed, predetermined outcomes, involving a plurality of actors with diverse roles, interests, and capacities (Ansell \u0026amp; Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe empirical material is drawn from the \u003cem\u003eKINETIC\u003c/em\u003e project (Knowledge Integration for Neighbourhoods in Energy Transition led by Inclusive Communities), a JPI Urban Europe initiative (2022\u0026ndash;2025). As members of the project team, the authors actively designed and facilitated co-creation processes, fostering collaboration with municipal stakeholders in the two demo cities: Bucharest (Romania) and Copenhagen (Denmark). While this article does not present a formal comparative analysis, it reflects on the team\u0026rsquo;s experimental insights into how distinct institutional contexts and governance traditions shape the activation of local energy transition pathways and experimental governance practices. These cities were purposively selected for their contrasting institutional contexts, urban governance traditions, and stages of engagement with sustainability transitions. Over the past two decades, both cities have followed distinct trajectories in their energy transitions, shaped by variations in regulatory frameworks, legal systems, and market structures. These differences are further influenced by divergent levels of community readiness, patterns of responsibility-sharing in energy governance, renewable energy uptake, and the availability of technological, institutional, and financial resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese differences are further influenced by divergent levels of community readiness, patterns of responsibility-sharing in energy governance, renewable energy uptake, and the availability of technological, institutional, and financial resources. Building on these contextual differences, the following methodological approach employs a comparative embedded case study design to explore how co-creation processes shape the early governance and experimentation of Positive Energy Districts in these distinct urban settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Research Design\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(case study framework, unit of analysis)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts an embedded case study design (Yin, 2017) to examine the governance and experimentation processes shaping the early conceptualisation of Positive Energy Districts. The unit of analysis is the situated co-creation process rather than the PED as a fixed technical object. The two case studies\u0026mdash;Bucharest and Copenhagen\u0026mdash;serve as distinct urban experiments in which the co-creation roadmap was deployed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese cases reflect diverse institutional contexts and governance traditions, with stakeholder engagement strategies tailored to local institutional cultures, networks, and readiness for energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCo-creation is understood here not only as a participatory value but as a situated method for generating shared understandings, building coalitions, and enabling reflexive governance in complex transition contexts (Voorberg et al., 2015; Brandsen et al., 2018; Ansell \u0026amp; Torfing, 2021). In other words, the co-creation roadmap works both as a research tool and an embedded process that traced how actors make sense of problems, opportunities, and institutional constraints in context-specific ways. This approach builds on recent scholarship emphasizing participatory methods in PED planning (Levenda, 2019;\u0026nbsp;Sassenou et al, 2025; Sareen et al., 2022, Bylund, 2020). However, unlike many existing studies, the KINETIC project positioned co-creation not as an add-on to implementation but as the core of an exploratory governance process focused on identifying planning potentials, developing shared analytical capacities, and uncovering the institutional mechanisms that shape energy transitions within specific contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Data Collection\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(multi-methods: workshops, interviews, observations, documents)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected between 2022 and 2024 using a multi-method strategy designed to capture the complexity of PED development and governance. The primary data sources included six workshops and mapping sessions conducted in each city, structured around the KINETIC co-creation roadmap to facilitate participatory engagement. Complementing these, participant observation was carried out during field visits, community events, and planning meetings to document real-time interactions and contextual dynamics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with approximately twenty stakeholders involved in PED development, including planners, municipal officers, energy advisors, and residents. These interviews provided in-depth insights into stakeholder perspectives, decision-making processes, and governance challenges. Additionally, a thorough document analysis was performed, covering municipal plans, policy reports, project deliverables, and strategic documents related to energy and spatial development, which helped contextualize the empirical findings within broader policy frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll workshop activities were meticulously recorded through detailed field notes, session artefacts such as maps and templates, and visual documentation. This comprehensive data collection enabled a robust post-hoc reconstruction of stakeholder interactions and the interpretive dynamics shaping the co-creation process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3 Co-Creation Roadmap\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(methodological architecture as the core)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-creation roadmap developed within the KINETIC project works as a \u003cem\u003emethodological architecture\u003c/em\u003e that operationalizes co-creative principles in the complex domain of Positive Energy District (PED) planning. Rather than a simple procedural guide, the roadmap structures iterative, multi-stakeholder engagement processes that facilitate collaborative knowledge production, reflexive governance, and strategic planning under conditions of uncertainty and diversity across urban contexts. This framework guides stakeholders through a carefully designed sequence of participatory stages, enabling them to collectively explore local energy transition pathways, integrate diverse forms of expertise, and generate actionable strategic visions responsive to context-specific challenges and opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe roadmap is organised into \u003cem\u003eeight sequential blocks\u003c/em\u003e, each addressing critical dimensions of PED development and deployment (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first block, \u003cem\u003eStakeholder Identification\u003c/em\u003e, focuses on mapping and engaging key actors across multiple sectors - including municipal authorities, civil society, academia, industry, and housing associations - to build a committed community network. Activities within this block include comprehensive stakeholder mapping, alignment of institutional roles, and convening a local kick-off event to establish shared objectives and governance structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second block, \u003cem\u003eLocal Energy Communities and Feasible Options\u003c/em\u003e, shifts attention to exploring the potential for Local Energy Communities (LECs) within each demonstration city. This involves assessing existing local legislation, developing methodologies for establishing LECs, and conducting collaborative workshops aimed at defining the legal, social, and technical conditions necessary for their successful implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the third block, \u003cem\u003eDevelopment Priorities\u003c/em\u003e, the focus is on identifying key themes and challenges related to PED transformation, such as renewable energy integration, regulatory gaps, and financing constraints. This culminates in a strategic roadmap outlining priorities, resources, and timelines necessary for advancing PED development at the demo sites.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these foundations, the fourth block, \u003cem\u003eEnergy Requirements\u003c/em\u003e, analyses current energy consumption patterns and building archetypes within the demonstration areas. Employing tools like TREE PED (Ciulla et al., 2024), this block applies spatial multi-criteria analyses and energy demand profiling to define feasible energy efficiency measures and renewable energy integration scenarios tailored to local conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fifth block, \u003cem\u003eQuantitative and Qualitative PED Mapping and Retrofit Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, assesses the potential of PEDs through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Stepwise activities include analyzing energy use data to identify efficiency opportunities, producing preliminary PED maps by surveying spatial and energy datasets, and evaluating the technical, economic, social, and environmental feasibility of renewable energy solutions with stakeholders participation to ensure contextual fit and scalability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNext, the sixth block, \u003cem\u003eCo-Design DEMO Development Vision\u003c/em\u003e, aligns stakeholder aspirations by collecting insights through surveys that capture community needs and preferences. This phase incorporates a reflexive SWOT analysis, which extends beyond the traditional SWOT framework by fostering ongoing critical reflection among stakeholders on their assumptions, values, and power relations (Vlados, 2019). Unlike conventional SWOT analyses that tend to produce static lists of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, reflexive SWOT emphasizes the dynamic, situated, and socially constructed nature of these factors, encouraging iterative interrogation of how different perspectives shape the identification and prioritization of strategic issues (Vennix, 1996; Moriarty \u0026amp; Honnery, 2006). This participatory and context-sensitive approach aligns with broader principles of participatory strategic planning and evaluation that seek to enhance stakeholder engagement and collective learning (Cousins \u0026amp; Whitmore, 1998). Through this iterative process of dialogue and reflection, a 30-year vision for the demo site is co-designed and continuously refined to ensure it balances long-term sustainability ambitions with practical feasibility, consistent with systemic and reflexive approaches to complex problem-solving (Arnold \u0026amp; Wade, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe seventh block, \u003cem\u003eDevelopment Scenarios\u003c/em\u003e, involves crafting potential development scenarios based on evaluations of energy sources, building retrofit options, and community engagement approaches. Stakeholders contribute to designing three scenarios, followed by detailed narratives describing how two selected scenarios could evolve in the local context, including their anticipated social and environmental impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the eighth block, \u003cem\u003eDesign of PED Transformation Roadmap\u003c/em\u003e, synthesizes insights and knowledge generated through the preceding blocks to formulate a \u003cem\u003eflexible and adaptive\u003c/em\u003e transformation roadmap. This process is inherently collaborative and reflexive, involving iterative co-design with stakeholders to ensure that the roadmap resonates with local aspirations, institutional capacities, and socio-political realities. By foregrounding inclusivity and contextual responsiveness, this block aims to produce a strategic guide that facilitates practical feasibility while supporting ongoing experimentation and learning, thereby enabling the desired energy transition of the demo site into a potential fully functioning Positive Energy District.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe eight blocks of the \u003cem\u003eco-creation roadmap\u003c/em\u003e (Figure 2) align closely with the four conceptual pillars guiding this research (Table 1). Stakeholder engagement and visioning activities (Blocks 1, 2, and 6) embody principles of co-creation, facilitating collaborative knowledge production and coalition-building. The iterative exploration of priorities, scenarios, and transformation strategies (Blocks 3, 7, and 8) operationalizes urban experimentation and builds transformative capacity. Meanwhile, reflective assessment and feedback mechanisms embedded in Blocks 4, 5, and 6 support reflexive governance, enabling continuous learning and adaptation. This alignment underscores the roadmap\u0026rsquo;s role as a practical instantiation of the theoretical framework, bridging theory and praxis in the governance of PED transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe four conceptual pillars guiding the KINETIC co-creation roadmap (table own production)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual Pillar\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAligned Roadmap Blocks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRole in PED Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCo-Creation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlocks 1 (Stakeholder Identification), 2 (Local Energy Communities), 6 (Co-Design DEMO Development Vision)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitate collaborative knowledge production and coalition-building among diverse stakeholders potentially involved in the energy transition.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUrban Experimentation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlocks 3 (Development Priorities), 7 (Development Scenarios), 8 (Design of PED Transformation Roadmap)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnable iterative exploration of priorities, energy and urban scenarios, and strategies, building transformative capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReflexive Governance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlocks 4 (Energy Requirements), 5 (Quantitative \u0026amp; Qualitative PED Mapping), 6 (Co-Design DEMO Development Vision)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport reflective assessment, feedback, and continuous learning for adaptive governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTransformative Capacity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlocks 3, 7, 8 (same as Urban Experimentation)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 200px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOperationalize long-term shifts through strategic planning and enactment of transformation urban energy pathways.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.4. Analytical Approach\u003c/strong\u003e (interpretive policy analysis, governance ethnography, coding)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpretive policy analysis has been increasingly applied in energy transition research to unpack the socio-political and discursive dimensions of governance in complex, contested settings (Hajer, 2005; Bulkeley \u0026amp; Mol, 2003; Rinkinen et al.,2021). While its explicit use in Positive Energy District studies is emerging, recent work on participatory governance and experimental planning in PEDs reflects interpretive approaches by focusing on meaning-making, framing processes, and co-production of governance arrangements (Genus \u0026amp; Theobald, 2016; Gl\u0026uuml;ck, 2023; Mee et al., 2021). This study builds on these traditions to explore how actors engage with PEDs as situated socio-technical experiments. Although governance ethnography has also not been extensively documented as a standalone method within PED research, its principles resonate closely with recent qualitative studies emphasizing participatory governance, reflexivity, and situated knowledge production in PED contexts. This study draws on governance ethnographic sensibilities to analyze how governance capacities and meanings are co-produced through situated interactions among stakeholders involved in PED development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.5 Reflexivity and Positionality\u003c/strong\u003e (embedded researcher role, ethics)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs researchers actively involved in the design and facilitation of the co-creation roadmap, we acknowledge our embedded positionality within the experiment, both in shaping the roadmap itself and guiding the co-creation process (Bradwell \u0026amp; Marr, 2008; Steen \u0026amp; van Bueren, 2017; Bisschops \u0026amp; Beunen, 2019). This positionality was managed through regular team reflection sessions, iterative feedback loops with local partners, and careful attention to ethical concerns related to representation, power asymmetries, and participant expectations. Rather than striving for neutrality, this PED research embraces situated reflexivity as a fundamental component of knowledge production in the context of this co-creation experiment and experimental urban governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.6 Limitations and Challenges\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the co-creation roadmap effectively facilitated stakeholders\u0026rsquo; engagement and knowledge integration, the methodological process encountered several challenges. These included varying levels of stakeholder availability and commitment, differing degrees of institutional readiness between Bucharest and Copenhagen, and difficulties in reconciling diverse interests within the constraints of workshop formats. Furthermore, the inherently iterative and exploratory nature of the roadmap meant that some outcomes remained provisional, underscoring the persistent uncertainty characteristic of experimental governance processes. Recognizing these limitations reinforces the study\u0026rsquo;s reflexive stance and highlights opportunities for future methodological refinement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.7 Ethical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical standards were rigorously upheld throughout the research. All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in workshops and interviews. Confidentiality was ensured by anonymizing responses and securely managing data storage in compliance with GDPR regulations. The research team remained vigilant to power asymmetries among stakeholders, fostering an inclusive and respectful environment that promoted open dialogue and equitable participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.8 Funding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Bucharest Case Study: Urban and Energy Transition Context","content":"\u003cp\u003eBucharest, the capital and largest city of Romania, is located in the southeastern part of the country along the banks of the \u003cem\u003eD\u0026acirc;mbovița River\u003c/em\u003e. With a metropolitan population exceeding 2 million inhabitants, Bucharest serves as Romania\u0026rsquo;s political, economic, and cultural hub. The city has undergone significant urban transformations, shifting from a centrally planned socialist city during the communist era to a rapidly urbanising metropolis marked by market-driven growth and socio-economic restructuring since the 1990s (Stanilov, 2007; Surubaru \u0026amp; Nitoiu, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe post-socialist urban transition in Bucharest has been characterized by rapid suburbanization, informal developments, and infrastructural challenges, which have shaped the city\u0026rsquo;s spatial and social dynamics (Kov\u0026aacute;cs, 2009; \u0026nbsp;Palaghiţă et al., 2017). This transition has posed complex challenges for sustainable urban development and climate-responsive governance, particularly in the energy sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRomania\u0026rsquo;s energy transition, and specifically thatof Bucharest, reflects broader trends within Eastern Europe marked by shifts from fossil-fuel dependence towards integration of renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency measures. Despite significant progress at the national level (IRENA, 2021), Bucharest faces specific challenges due to its aging building stock, energy-intensive infrastructure, and fragmented governance structures (Petrache et al., 2018; Voicu-Dorobanțu, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent studies highlight the importance of local governance innovation and community engagement in advancing Bucharest\u0026rsquo;s energy transition pathways (Dragomir et al., 2024; Stanescu et al., 2025). The city\u0026rsquo;s potential for Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) is linked to these dynamics, including opportunities to retrofit existing neighborhoods and develop new energy communities within a complex institutional context (Dabija \u0026amp; Nicolae, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Applying the Co-Creation Roadmap in Bucharest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of the KINETIC co-creation roadmap in Bucharest unfolded within a complex urban and institutional milieu shaped by post-socialist dynamics and persistent challenges of energy transition. The roadmap was carefully adapted to the city\u0026rsquo;s distinct governance arrangements, diverse stakeholder network, and socio-technical context, requiring a flexible, context-sensitive facilitation approach by the project team.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn initial critical task involved comprehensive stakeholder mapping and engagement, encompassing municipal authorities, utilities, housing associations, civil society actors, and academic institutions. Acknowledging fragmentation and uneven institutional capacities, the project team deliberately fostered a collaborative ecosystem aimed at sustaining ongoing dialogue, mutual learning, and coordinated action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarly workshops mobilised local stakeholders in \u003cem\u003eSector 6\u003c/em\u003e neighboughood, exploring feasible pathways toward sustainable Local Energy Communities (LECs). These engagements convened diverse participants - from local government and NGOs to energy and building experts and community members - stimulating conversations on scaling energy interventions from the building to the neighbourhood level. A key focus was the ELENA-funded initiative generating surplus energy from Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEB) schools, with participants deliberating innovative uses such as energy storage, community applications (public lighting, EV charging), and centralized monitoring systems. Emphasis was placed on promoting community participation and citizen empowerment to address energy poverty and advance energy democracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on this foundation, subsequent workshops explored regulatory and operational models for LEC implementation. The project team facilitated the co-development of pragmatic scenarios that envisioned NZEB schools as localized energy producers, homeowner associations adopting rooftop solar through targeted support, and the formation of neighbourhood-wide energy cooperatives grounded in democratic governance and renewable energy distribution. These scenarios underscored principles of decentralization, affordability, and collective ownership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnchoring the roadmap to the workshops, the project team then shifted to legislative and spatial considerations, with the attention to the Drumul Taberei\u0026rsquo;s multifamily housing stock emerging as a critical priority due to its scale, energy inefficiencies, and socio-economic diversity, including vulnerable populations affected by energy poverty. This neighbourhood, spanning approximately 3.3 km\u0026sup2; and housing some 80,000 residents, with over 70% of buildings requiring energy-efficient renovations, became the focal area for integrated PED experimentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven spatial constraints for rooftop photovoltaics, the project team and stakeholders conceptualized a \u0026ldquo;virtual\u0026rdquo; Positive Energy District, leveraging underutilised public land and digital platforms to enable energy sharing beyond physical boundaries. This digital innovation addressed regulatory and infrastructural limits, aligning with emerging smart grid and community energy paradigms and extending the experimental city framework. Concurrently, the value of public green spaces for carbon sequestration and urban cooling was explored, incorporating cutting-edge urban design elements informed by parallel projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe roadmap\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on Local Energy Communities supported a detailed exploration of legal frameworks and infrastructural opportunities, revealing challenges such as financing, regulatory ambiguity, and multi-actor coordination. Participatory workshops enabled stakeholders to negotiate these complexities and identify strategic priorities attuned to local realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pivotal milestone was the collaborative collection and modelling of detailed energy data for Drumul Taberei\u0026rsquo;s housing stock, performed in partnership with the University of Palermo and local authorities, augmented by resident surveys. This granular analysis informed spatial multi-criteria and energy demand assessments, revealing opportunities for retrofit and renewable integration while highlighting data and technical capacity gaps that the project team helped address through iterative refinement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-creation process further harnessed reflexive SWOT analyses and iterative feedback to integrate diverse community needs and perspectives into a shared, pragmatic long-term vision for the pilot district. Scenario development workshops articulated alternative energy futures, weighing trade-offs and synergies across technical solutions and social dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the project team led the synthesis of the insights from the workshops into a dynamic and adaptive PED transformation roadmap, collaboratively designed to guide Drumul Taberei\u0026rsquo;s trajectory towards a potential fully functioning Positive Energy District. This strategic document embodies the interplay of technical innovation, social inclusion, and governance adaptation required for sustainable neighbourhood energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Co-Creation Process and Strategic Outcomes in Bucharest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe intensive co-creation process carried out over a two-year period generated a wealth of requirements, data, and knowledge, all of which were consolidated into the final strategic document titled the \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda for Drumul Taberei.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This strategy represents a significant step toward making Positive Energy District (PED) objectives more attainable within the local context. From both research and local impact perspectives, the KINETIC project in Bucharest\u0026rsquo;s Sector 6 has been a notable success. It addressed key themes such as energy communities, high-performance energy transitions, community needs assessment, and the active involvement of homeowners\u0026rsquo; associations in neighborhood transformation decision-making. These themes are priorities not only for \u003cem\u003eSector 6\u003c/em\u003e but also resonate with many other Romanian cities. The project\u0026rsquo;s open and participatory approach has demonstrated particular relevance for transforming typical block neighborhoods throughout Romania, a process greatly facilitated by the \u003cem\u003eSector 6\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCity Hall\u0026rsquo;s involvement in the 100 Climate Neutral Cities mission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe KINETIC project occurred at a critical moment, being among the few local and national initiatives tackling essential issues that have potential to influence future investments and legislation. These include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRenovation of the Building Stock:\u003c/em\u003e Approximately 70% of multifamily residential buildings in Bucharest remain unrenovated. Achieving the city\u0026rsquo;s climate neutrality target by 2035 necessitates extensive renovations to enhance energy efficiency. KINETIC provided vital data on the impact of renovations across key building archetypes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLocal Energy Communities:\u003c/em\u003e While secondary legislation and operational procedures for energy communities are still under development nationally, KINETIC equipped Sector 6 City Hall with concrete solutions and data to support the implementation of such communities, aligned with local strategies and the outcomes of the co-creation process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond the strategic outcome embodied in the \u0026ldquo;Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda for 2050 for Drumul Taberei,\u0026rdquo; which aims to coordinate long-term investments and promote a novel approach to planning the regeneration and transformation of block neighborhoods, KINETIC also fostered the creation of a dynamic and effective network of local partnerships during its implementation phase. Notable developments include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContributions to ongoing initiatives:\u003c/em\u003e KINETIC informed the SMART6 energy transition strategy for the entire district and the Mission 100 Cities platform, providing inspiration, empirical data, and references essential for the development of green energy and digitalization measures within SMART6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCatalyzing new research and innovation projects:\u003c/em\u003e Building on KINETIC\u0026rsquo;s findings, several projects have emerged, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSET-PED (funded under DUT): This project assesses the impact of multifamily housing renovations using eco-friendly methods and repurposing construction materials for smart urban furniture equipped with energy components.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFAVORIT+ (financed under the European Innovation Union 3rd call): An innovative urban energy transition project focusing on integrating flexible renewable energy systems, supported by AI-driven digital twins to optimize energy production and simulate pilot replication at the sectoral level.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe intensive co-creation process in Bucharest\u0026rsquo;s Sector 6 has proven instrumental in bridging research and local practice, yielding actionable data, strengthened stakeholder networks, and a shared strategic vision for energy transition. By integrating diverse perspectives and fostering collaboration across institutional and community actors, the KINETIC project has not only advanced the feasibility of Positive Energy Districts in Drumul Taberei but also contributed to broader urban sustainability objectives relevant across Romania. The resulting \u003cem\u003eEnergy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda\u003c/em\u003e provides a robust foundation for aligning future investments, legislative efforts, and participatory governance models, thereby setting a precedent for transformative urban energy initiatives in similar contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Copenhagen Case Study: Urban and Energy Transition Context","content":"\u003cp\u003eCopenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is situated on the eastern coast of the island of Zealand and partially on Amager Island, with a metropolitan population of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants. Renowned for its ambitious sustainability agenda, the city has positioned itself as a global leader in climate action and urban energy transition (Bulkeley \u0026amp; Betsill, 2013; Karn\u0026oslash;e \u0026amp; Jensen, 2016. The city\u0026rsquo;s urban development has been strongly influenced by integrated planning frameworks that emphasize renewable energy adoption, carbon neutrality, and sustainable mobility, culminating in its goal to become carbon neutral by 2025 - a milestone enshrined in its \u003cem\u003eCopenhagen Climate Plan\u003c/em\u003e (City of Copenhagen, 2020). Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s compact urban form, extensive cycling infrastructure, and high-quality public transport networks complement its energy transition ambitions, promoting a holistic approach to sustainability (Geels et al., 2017; Amer et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDenmark\u0026rsquo;s energy transition pathway, with Copenhagen as a focal point, is marked by a progressive shift away from fossil fuels towards wind power, district heating, and smart grid technologies (Lauber \u0026amp; Jacobsson, 2016; Sovacool \u0026amp; Dworkin, 2015). The city\u0026rsquo;s decentralized energy systems - particularly the extensive district heating network - have been critical in reducing carbon emissions and integrating renewable sources (Hvelplund, 2013; Lund et al., 2022). Recent scholarship has increasingly highlighted the central role of participatory governance and energy communities in Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s energy transition. Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s municipality has transitioned from a regulatory body to an active enabler (Hofstad et al., 2022) providing regulatory support and embedding energy communities within city climate strategies. This aligns who describe Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s urban living labs and energy communities as experimental arenas fostering social, technological, and institutional innovation, thereby embodying principles of experimentalist governance and participatory sustainability (Wittmayer et al., 2020; Hoffmann \u0026amp; Munthe-Kaas, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScholars have further illustrated Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s municipal strategies in fostering energy communities, underscoring the importance of flexible governance structures that accommodate local social dynamics (Gorro\u0026ntilde;o-Albizu et al., 2019). Challenges related to balancing local autonomy with broader policy frameworks echo the governance complexities identified in PED development processes. Complement this perspective multi-level governance analyses, highlighting Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s integration of top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives as critical for adaptive and collaborative urban energy transitions (Hansen \u0026amp; Agger, 2023). The co-evolution of renewable energy technologies and active citizen participation is well documented by scholars (e.g. Devine-Wright, 2008; Sovacool \u0026amp; Lakshmi Ratan, 2012; von Wirth et al., 2018) who argue that Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s success stems from intertwining technological innovation with social acceptance and community engagement. Research has also expanded on this by showcasing Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Smart Energy City\u0026rdquo; model (Lund et al., 2023; Preece, 2024) which integrates smart grids and energy communities to enhance urban energy management, efficiency, and empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, scholars underscore the foundational role of energy democracy in Copenhagen, examining participatory mechanisms that enable citizen influence over energy policymaking (Sovacool \u0026amp; Blyth, 2015; Hvelplund, 2013; J\u0026oslash;rgensen \u0026amp; Elle, 2018). This emphasis on inclusive governance and co-creation resonates strongly with the KINETIC project\u0026rsquo;s approach to Positive Energy Districts, highlighting the city\u0026rsquo;s commitment to socially just and effective energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Applying the Co-Creation Roadmap to Copenhagen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of the KINETIC co-creation roadmap in Copenhagen unfolded within a complex urban and institutional context characterized by ambitious climate goals, an established district heating system, and a multifaceted regulatory environment. Public housing associations, managing substantial residential portfolios and often serving disadvantaged neighborhoods, emerged as key actors, particularly in addressing social equity within the energy transition. The project team initiated the process by mapping and engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including municipal departments, housing associations (such as Boligforeningen AAB, Boligselskabet KAB, and Boligselskabet Sj\u0026aelig;lland), academic institutions like Aalborg University, utility companies, and civil society organizations. This coalition reflected Copenhagen\u0026rsquo;s diverse institutional energy governance configuration and established the foundation for collaborative exploration of local energy community potentials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite municipal solar PV projects and citizen energy communities such as Aved\u0026oslash;re Green City illustrating local innovation, many planned initiatives in neighborhoods like Bavneh\u0026oslash;j, Nordvest, Sydhavnen, and Nordhavn remain unrealized due to persistent regulatory challenges and utility monopolies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough a series of workshops facilitated by the project team, energy experts identified critical priorities, including energy efficiency, renewable energy adoption, sustainable urban development, and transportation. Housing associations were recognized as pivotal organizational intermediaries capable of leveraging their extensive housing stock to drive Positive Energy District transformations. Nevertheless, significant legal and organizational barriers, especially in light of the 2023 Electricity Supply Act, complicate self-consumption models and energy sharing, necessitating innovative governance strategies and robust partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGuided by the co-creation roadmap, stakeholders pursued multiple pathways to advance PED development: optimizing existing heating systems within cadastral boundaries, navigating legislative barriers via structured dialogues and improved data infrastructure, partnering with utilities for heat integration, and repurposing underutilized public spaces for solar energy generation. The Bavneh\u0026oslash;j district emerged as a critical site demonstrating both opportunities and systemic obstacles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequent workshops led by the project team delved into the technical and economic dimensions of electricity and heating within public housing. Findings highlighted a fragmented electricity system with tenants as isolated consumers under monopoly control, contrasted with more centralized yet constrained district heating systems managed by housing associations. Tenant behavior, renovation efforts, and smart metering were identified as key levers for enhancing energy efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strategic visioning process revealed a strong aspiration among housing associations to cultivate collaborative forums for knowledge exchange while confronting complex legal and regulatory challenges. Although solar photovoltaic technology remains highly favored, concerns were raised that it may overshadow the more impactful potential of heating system upgrades. The roadmap delineates a phased approach\u0026mdash;from immediate operational measures to integrated long-term strategies\u0026mdash;requiring systemic regulatory reforms and collective governance beyond the capacities of individual housing associations\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2 The Co-Creation Process and the Strategic Outcomes in Copenhagen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-creation process in Copenhagen unfolded through a series of iterative workshops and stakeholder engagements that brought together public housing associations, municipal authorities, academic researchers, utility providers, and community representatives. This collaborative approach, structured around the co-creation roadmap, facilitated comprehensive dialogue addressing the complex technical, regulatory, and social challenges inherent in developing Positive Energy Districts (PEDs). Through this process, a shared understanding of both opportunities and constraints emerged, laying the groundwork for collective action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Copenhagen PED urban living lab focused on the Bavneh\u0026oslash;j neighborhood within the Kongens Enghave district, a spatially compact area of approximately 0.39 km\u0026sup2; inhabited by roughly 4,000 residents. Bavneh\u0026oslash;j serves as a significant example of socio-economic heterogeneity, against the more affluent neighboring \u003cem\u003eHolmene\u003c/em\u003e, thereby situating the local energy transition within a broader context of income disparity and social differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholders\u0026rsquo; engagement strategies have prioritized raising awareness and eliciting expert insights concerning critical issues such as energy efficiency, evolving legislative frameworks, and the organizational capacities of housing associations. Experts emphasized the essential role of collaborative governance models, active community participation, and advanced energy management systems as foundational enablers for the success of Local Energy Communities (LECs). Building on these foundations, subsequent scenario-building exercises positioned housing associations as pivotal intermediaries capable of catalyzing PED transformations while simultaneously confronting pervasive legal ambiguities, data accessibility limitations, and a fragmented local energy market.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDetailed technical and organizational analyses uncovered complex regulatory monopolies and infrastructural barriers that constrain local energy sharing and complicate collective self-consumption practices. These findings underscore the urgent need for regulatory reform and innovative governance arrangements to fully unlock the potential of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmerging development priorities from the co-creation activities demonstrated strong stakeholders support for expanding rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installations, despite legislative challenges. Concurrently, participants of the workshops highlighted significant energy-saving potentials through heating system optimization and renovation, further supported by advancements in smart metering aligned with European Union directives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final co-design workshops consolidated these insights into a strategic vision advocating a phased approach to PED development, beginning with immediate operational measures such as integrating solar production with communal facilities, and progressing towards more ambitious, long-term objectives involving cross-property energy sharing and multi-sector integration. This vision foregrounds the critical necessity for legal and regulatory transformation, alongside sustained multi-stakeholder collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollectively, the Copenhagen co-creation experience generated actionable insights and strategic roadmaps that are finely attuned to local socio-technical contexts. It also fostered trust, capacity building, and a shared commitment among diverse actors, exemplifying the transformative potential of structured, inclusive governance frameworks to overcome systemic barriers and advance socially just, environmentally sustainable urban energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Lessons from Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts in Bucharest and Copenhagen: Key Factors for Effective PED Strategies","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe experiences of the KINETIC project in Bucharest and Copenhagen offer valuable insights into the complex conditions and dynamic processes that underpin effective co-creation of Positive Energy District (PED) strategies in diverse contexts. Together, these learnings affirm that impactful co-creation for PED strategies depends on adaptive, contextually embedded governance processes that integrate technical innovation with inclusive social practices and proactive regulatory engagement. This integration is most important to provide guidance for future projects aiming to harness the transformative potential of PEDs in diverse urban contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA critical foundation is the \u003cem\u003emeaningful engagement of diverse stakeholders\u003c/em\u003e spanning municipal authorities, housing associations, utility providers, civil society, academia, and local residents. Building and sustaining inclusive governance networks fosters trust, facilitates the sharing of knowledge, and enhances the legitimacy of PED processes. Tailoring engagement approaches to align with local institutional cultures and actor readiness proves essential for maintaining commitment and sustained participation throughout the co-creation journey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-creation roadmap emerges not merely as a procedural guide but as a \u003cem\u003eflexible governance and methodological architecture\u003c/em\u003e. Its phased and iterative design accommodates ongoing learning and the integration of technical, social, and policy dimensions, while reflexive feedback loops ensure responsiveness to evolving local conditions and stakeholder expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNavigating \u003cem\u003ecomplex legal and regulatory landscapes\u003c/em\u003e remains a formidable challenge. Successful PED co-creation processes incorporate proactive strategies that include ongoing dialogue with policymakers, scenario-based visioning anticipating legislative shifts, and harmonization of local initiatives with broader regulatory frameworks. Understanding constraints such as the complex of utilities path-dependencies, monopolies and data governance regimes allows for grounded and realistic planning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, co-creation serves as a vital platform for \u003cem\u003ecapacity building\u003c/em\u003e. Through stakeholders\u0026rsquo; participation in technical workshops, scenario planning exercises, and joint data analysis, co-creation fosters the development of analytical skills and collective intelligence. The co-creation process empowers participants to actively influence PED development and facilitates the progression from conceptual planning to practical implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA commitment to \u003cem\u003esocial equity and local relevance\u003c/em\u003e is paramount. Explicitly integrating socio-economic diversity and community needs strengthens the social legitimacy and sustainability impact of PED strategies. The focused attention on neighborhoods like Bavneh\u0026oslash;j in Copenhagen and Drumul Taberei in Bucharest underscores the necessity of contextualizing interventions to address \u003cem\u003especific local realities\u003c/em\u003e and promote inclusive outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, balancing long-term sustainability ambitions with actionable short-term steps proves vital. The phased co-creation process identified immediate initiatives - such as rooftop solar projects and stakeholder alignment - while progressively advancing systemic transformations that encompass regulatory reform and integrated energy sharing, thereby sustaining momentum and collective engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these lessons affirm that meaningful co-creation for PED strategies depends on adaptive, contextually grounded governance processes that weave together technical innovation, inclusive social practices, and proactive regulatory engagement. These insights offer essential guidance for future endeavors aiming to unlock the transformative potential of Positive Energy Districts across diverse urban contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; Co-creation processes for Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) \u0026ndash; Learning points from Bucharest and Copenhagen\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDimension\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBucharest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCopenhagen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLessons Learned\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStakeholder Engagement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBroad engagement including local authorities, NGOs, academia, utilities, housing associations, and residents; adapted to fragmented governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInclusive coalition of public housing associations, municipal departments, utilities, academia, and civil society; strong intermediary role of housing orgs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuccessful co-creation requires inclusive, multi-level stakeholder engagement tailored to local institutional contexts and existing networks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernance Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdaptive co-creation roadmap facilitating iterative learning, reflexivity, and contextual adaptation; strong focus on local collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexible governance architecture enabling iterative feedback, scenario building, and legal navigation; emphasis on capacity building within housing sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexible, context-sensitive governance frameworks that support iterative learning and reflexivity are key to managing complexity and uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegulatory Challenges\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComplex legal landscape; challenges around energy sharing, ownership, and enabling Local Energy Communities; need for regulatory dialogue and reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRestrictive legislation on electricity sharing, grid monopolies, and legal grey zones; difficulty in enabling collective self-consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProactive engagement with legal frameworks and policymakers is essential to overcome regulatory barriers that constrain PED development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnical \u0026amp; Data Capacity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData limitations managed through partnerships (e.g., University of Palermo); spatial and energy data collection critical for modelling and planning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDetailed analysis of heating and electricity systems; constrained by monopolized data access and technical challenges in heat and electricity management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuilding analytical capacity and ensuring data accessibility are fundamental to informed decision-making and realistic scenario development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunity and Social Focus\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmphasis on combating energy poverty, fostering energy democracy, and empowering citizens; localized strategies attentive to socio-economic diversity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFocus on social housing organizations as intermediaries; importance of community empowerment balanced with technical and regulatory constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-creation processes must integrate social equity and local relevance to ensure just and sustainable energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrategic Outcomes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDevelopment of an \u0026ldquo;Energy Transformation Roadmap and Energy Agenda\u0026rdquo; aligning investments and planning for block neighborhood regeneration.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhased vision emphasizing solar integration, heating optimization, legal reform, and multi-sector collaboration; focus on operational and systemic change.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategic roadmaps that balance short-term actionable steps with long-term transformative goals foster momentum and stakeholder commitment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCapacity Building \u0026amp; Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo-creation fostered trust among stakeholders and enhanced local capacities for energy transition planning and collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProcess enhanced knowledge, trust, and commitment among diverse actors, enabling ongoing dialogue despite systemic barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrust-building and capacity development are critical for sustaining engagement and enabling adaptive governance over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusion: Co-Creation as Experimental Governance in PED Transitions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis article has explored how co-creation processes can effectively facilitate the conceptualisation and strategic planning of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) as forms of experimental governance across diverse urban contexts. Grounded in theoretical frameworks of urban experimentation (Bulkeley \u0026amp; Cast\u0026aacute;n Broto, 2013; Evans et al., 2016), co-creation (Voorberg et al., 2015; Ansell \u0026amp; Torfing, 2021), reflexive governance (Bevir, 2013; Hajer, 2009), and transformative capacity (Kemp et al., 2017; Wolfram, 2019), co-creation is understood as an iterative, participatory framework that promotes alignment among stakeholders, collaborative knowledge production, and adaptive planning amid uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA central insight from the KINETIC project is the critical role of the co-creation roadmap as a structured methodological architecture orchestrating multi-stakeholder engagement (Ansell \u0026amp; Torfing, 2021; Steen \u0026amp; van Bueren, 2017). This roadmap facilitates collaborative knowledge generation, reflexive governance, and context-sensitive strategic planning. It guided the project team through phased participatory activities, enabling exploration of local energy transition pathways with diverse stakeholders and co-design of actionable, contextually grounded visions. The facilitation by the KINETIC team\u0026mdash;whose \u003cem\u003esituated reflexivity\u003c/em\u003e (Finlay, 2002; Bisschops \u0026amp; Beunen, 2019) critically shaped power relations and dialogue\u0026mdash;was essential for sustaining trust, negotiating tensions, and bridging technical and social dimensions of PED development (Bradwell \u0026amp; Marr, 2008; Ansell \u0026amp; Torfing, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-creation processes highlight the necessity of dual-track governance - the dynamic interplay between top-down policy frameworks and bottom-up community-driven initiatives (Grin, 2010). Effective PED governance requires simultaneous mobilisation of institutional actors and grassroots stakeholders, ensuring governance is neither solely imposed by authorities nor entirely emergent from local communities, but unfolds through continuous negotiation and mutual adaptation across governance scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrawing on empirical evidence from Bucharest and Copenhagen, this study advances the understanding of PEDs as socio-technical and political endeavours characterised by ongoing negotiation and \u003cem\u003ecritical reflexivity\u003c/em\u003e (Smith \u0026amp; Stirling, 2013). The co-creation roadmap emerges as a flexible governance instrument mediating diverse stakeholders, institutional logics, and regulatory complexities, fostering transformative capacity vital for just and effective urban energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, challenges persist. The inherently experimental nature of PED governance generates uncertainties and provisional outcomes that complicate scaling and institutionalisation. Complex regulatory frameworks and entrenched power asymmetries among stakeholders demand sustained political commitment and adaptive capacities, which vary across contexts and actors (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Meadowcroft, 2009). The persistent tension between technocratic imperatives for energy efficiency and aspirations for inclusive, democratic urban futures remains a delicate balance (Jasanoff, 2010; Agyeman, 2013). As demonstrated in Bucharest and Copenhagen, without explicit prioritisation of social inclusion and equity, co-creation risks reproducing existing inequalities, particularly in socio-economically diverse neighbourhoods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings underscore the imperative of sustained \u003cem\u003esituated\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ecritical reflexivity\u003c/em\u003e in both research and practice (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Sch\u0026ouml;n, 1979).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis entails encouraging scholars and practitioners to continually interrogate who benefits from PED transitions, how governance innovations evolve, and which mechanisms best support just and resilient urban energy transformations. Lessons from Bucharest and Copenhagen reveal that meaningful co-creation depends on inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement, flexible and context-sensitive methodological frameworks such as the co-creation roadmap, proactive navigation of legal and institutional barriers, and facilitation attentive to power dynamics and local realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, this research contributes to the evolving discourse on experimental governance in sustainability transitions by demonstrating how carefully structured and reflexively facilitated co-creation process - embedded within dual-track governance processes - can cultivate new capacities for transformative urban energy pathways that are both socially just and technically robust.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eE.L and J.I prepared the Copenhagen component of the case studyC.P, A.D, A.L prepared the Bucharest component of the study.P.E and E.L reviewed the entire case study and elaborated conclusions.C.P and E.L coordinated the article composition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDaniele Vettorato (Eurac Research), Francesco Guarino (University of Palermo), Alberto Brunetti (University of Palermo)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgyeman, J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eIntroducing just sustainabilities: Policy, planning, and practice\u003c/em\u003e. Zed Books Ltd..\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmer, S. B., Bramstoft, R., Balyk, O., \u0026amp; Nielsen, P. S. (2019). Modelling the future low-carbon energy systems-case study of greater Copenhagen, Denmark. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnsell, C., \u0026amp; Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of public administration research and theory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 543-571.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnsell, C., \u0026amp; Torfing, J. (2021). \u003cem\u003ePublic governance as co-creation: A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnold, R. D., and J. P. Wade. 2015. A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669\u0026ndash;678.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBisschops, S., \u0026amp; Beunen, R. (2019). A new role for citizens\u0026rsquo; initiatives: The difficulties in co-creating institutional change in urban planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(1), 72\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradwell, P., \u0026amp; Marr, S. (2008). Making the most of collaboration: an international survey of public service co-design, Demos Report 23. \u003cem\u003eDEMOS, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) Public Sector Research Centre, London\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrandsen, T., Steen, T., \u0026amp; Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-creation and co-production in public services: Urgent issues in practice and research. In \u003cem\u003eCo-production and co-creation\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3-8). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., \u0026amp; Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. \u003cem\u003ePublic administration review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e73\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulkeley, H. (2014). \u003cem\u003eTransnational climate change governance\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulkeley, H., \u0026amp; Betsill, M. M. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 136-154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulkeley, H., \u0026amp; Cast\u0026aacute;n Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. \u003cem\u003eTransactions of the institute of British geographers\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 361-375.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulkeley, H., \u0026amp; Mol, A. P. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: consensus, ambivalence and debate. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental values\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 143-154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., Hodson, M., \u0026amp; Marvin, S. (Eds.). (2013). \u003cem\u003eCities and low carbon transitions\u003c/em\u003e. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., ... \u0026amp; Palgan, Y. V. (2016). Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. \u003cem\u003eCurrent opinion in environmental sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 13-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBylund, J. (2020). Joint programming for urban transformations: the making of the JPI Urban Europe Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. \u003cem\u003eUrban Transformations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBylund, J., Riegler, J., \u0026amp; Wrangsten, C. (2022). Anticipating experimentation as the \u0026lsquo;the new normal\u0026rsquo;through urban living labs 2.0: lessons learnt by JPI Urban Europe. \u003cem\u003eUrban Transformations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCast\u0026aacute;n Broto, V., \u0026amp; Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change, 23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 92 102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCity of Copenhagen (2020) \u003cem\u003eCopenhagen Climate Plan\u003c/em\u003e. https://urbandevelopmentcph.kk.dk/climate (last access June 2025)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiulla, G., Sessa, E., Brunetti, A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Cellura, M., ... \u0026amp; Papina, C. (2022) Towards Positive Energy District Assessment: The Case Study of Bucharest. \u003cem\u003eAvailable at SSRN 5133244\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiulla, G., Sessa, E., Brunetti, A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Cellura, M., ... \u0026amp; Papina, C. Towards Positive Energy District Assessment: The Case Study of Bucharest. \u003cem\u003eAvailable at SSRN 5133244\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClerici Maestosi, P. (2024) Harmonizing Urban Innovation: Exploring the Nexus between Smart Cities and Positive Energy Districts. \u003cem\u003eEnergies (19961073)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(14).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCousins, J. B., and Whitmore, E. (1998) Framing Participatory Evaluation.\u0026rdquo; In E. Whitmore (ed.), Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 80. San Francisco.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDabija, A. M., \u0026amp; Nicolae, I. (2020). A Sustainable Approach Towards Energy Savings in the Cities of Romania, Bucharest: A Case Study. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Efficient Building Design\u003c/em\u003e, 233-248.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDerkenbaeva, E., Vega, S. H., Hofstede, G. J., \u0026amp; Van Leeuwen, E. (2022). Positive energy districts: Mainstreaming energy transition in urban areas. \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e153\u003c/em\u003e, 111782.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDevine-Wright, P. (2008). Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. \u003cem\u003eDelivering a low carbon electricity system: technologies, economics and policy\u003c/em\u003e, 1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDragomir, A. M., Papina, C. L., Lazăr, A. C., \u0026amp; Guarino, F. (2024, October). Transformation Pathways: Drumul Taberei Neighbourhood-a Positive Energy District?. In \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1402, No. 1, p. 012009). IOP Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans, J., Karvonen, A., \u0026amp; Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city: New modes and prospects of urban transformation. In \u003cem\u003eThe experimental city\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1-12). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans, J., V\u0026aacute;cha, T., Kok, H., \u0026amp; Watson, K. (2021). How cities learn: From experimentation to transformation. \u003cem\u003eUrban Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 171-182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. \u003cem\u003eQualitative research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 209-230.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlyvbjerg, B. (2001). \u003cem\u003eMaking social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. \u003cem\u003eQualitative inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 219-245.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental science \u0026amp; policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e, 101-111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGall, T., Carbonari, G., Wyckmans, A., \u0026amp; Ahlers, D. (2020). Co-Creating Local Energy Transitions Through Smart Cities: Piloting a Prosumer-Oriented Approach. \u003cem\u003eReview of World Planning Practice. Volume 16: Post-Oil Urbanism\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(6-7), 897-920.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., \u0026amp; Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e357\u003c/em\u003e(6357), 1242-1244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGenus, A., \u0026amp; Theobald, K. (2016). Creating low-carbon neighbourhoods: a critical discourse analysis. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Urban and Regional Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 782-797.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGl\u0026uuml;ck, S. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research Governance in the European Union\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Zeppelin Universit\u0026auml;t).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGorro\u0026ntilde;o-Albizu, L., Sperling, K., \u0026amp; Dj\u0026oslash;rup, S. (2019). The past, present and uncertain future of community energy in Denmark: Critically reviewing and conceptualising citizen ownership. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e, 101231.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrin, J. (2020). \u0026lsquo;Doing\u0026rsquo;system innovations from within the heart of the regime. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(5), 682-694.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrin, J., Rotmans, J., \u0026amp; Schot, J. (2010). \u003cem\u003eTransitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHajer, M. A. (2005). Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acid rain to BSE. In \u003cem\u003eDiscourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance\u003c/em\u003e(pp. 297-315). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHansen, K. B., \u0026amp; Agger, A. (2023). Copenhagen CO2 neutrality in 2025? A polycentric analysis of urban climate governance in Copenhagen 2006\u0026ndash;2020. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Policy and Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 288-300.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHealey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and planning A\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1531-1546.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHodson, M., \u0026amp; Marvin, S. (2017). The mutual construction of urban retrofit and scale: Governing ON, IN and WITH in Greater Manchester. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Planning C: Politics and Space\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1198-1217.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoffmann, B., \u0026amp; Munthe-Kaas, P. (2020). Staging urban design through experimentation. In \u003cem\u003eStaging Collaborative Design and Innovation\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 215-230). Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofstad, H., S\u0026oslash;rensen, E., Torfing, J., \u0026amp; Vedeld, T. (2022) Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co‐creation from Copenhagen and Oslo. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Policy and Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 203-216.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, S., \u0026amp; Hoffmann, M. (2020). Just urban transitions: Toward a research agenda. \u003cem\u003eWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), e640.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHvelplund, F. (2013). Innovative democracy, political economy, and the transition to renewable energy. A full-scale experiment in Denmark 1976-2013. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental research, engineering and management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e66\u003c/em\u003e(4), 5-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIEA (2020) \u003cem\u003eRenewable Energy Market Update\u003c/em\u003e. http://www.socialacceptance.org/images/2009AR_Task28.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIRENA (2021). Renewable energy prospects: Romania. International Renewable Energy Agency. https://www.irena.org/publications/2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. \u003cem\u003eTheory, culture \u0026amp; society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(2-3), 233-253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. \u003cem\u003eDreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power\u003c/em\u003e, 1-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ\u0026oslash;rgensen, U., \u0026amp; Elle, M. (2018). Energy district Sydhavn\u0026ndash;: co-creation of energy transitions with citizens in the contexts of city and national politics. In \u003cem\u003eReconfiguring Consumption and Production Systems\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJPI Urban Europe (2020). \u003cem\u003eDriving urban transitions to a sustainable future: Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda\u003c/em\u003e. https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarn\u0026oslash;e, P., \u0026amp; Jensen, J. S. (2016). Struggles in Denmark\u0026rsquo;s transition towards a low carbon future: Shifts in the energy technology assemblage. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Transitions to Energy and Climate Security\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 391-412). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarvonen, A., \u0026amp; Van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 379\u0026ndash;392.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12075\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKov\u0026aacute;cs, Z. (2009). Social and economic transformation of historical neighbourhoods in Budapest. \u003cem\u003eTijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(4), 399-416.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrangs\u0026aring;s, S. G., Steemers, K., Konstantinou, T., Soutullo, S., Liu, M., Giancola, E., ... \u0026amp; Maas, N. (2021). Positive energy districts: identifying challenges and interdependencies. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(19), 10551.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLauber, V., \u0026amp; Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and restricting socio-political space for renewables\u0026ndash;The German Renewable Energy Act. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Innovation and Societal Transitions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e, 147-163.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevenda, A. M. (2019). Mobilizing smart grid experiments: Policy mobilities and urban energy governance. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Planning C: Politics and Space\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 634-651.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissandrello, E. (2025). Power and knowledge: the legacy of educating professional planners \u0026ndash; In Freudendal-Pedersen, M.; Galland, D, Iuel-Stissing, J. (Eds) Planning For Urban Sustainability (pp. 127-143). Elgar Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissandrello, E. and Grin, J. (2011) Reflexive planning as design and work: Lessons from the port of Amsterdam. Planning Theory \u0026amp; Practice 12.2 (2011): 223-248\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissandrello, E., Steffansen, R. N., \u0026amp; N\u0026oslash;rgaard, L. S. (2023). Theorizing Public Participation in Urban Governance. Toward a New Normal Planning. In \u003cem\u003eThe \u0026lsquo;New Normal\u0026rsquo;in Planning, Governance and Participation: Transforming Urban Governance in a Post-pandemic World\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 15-26). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLund, H., Mathiesen, B. V., \u0026Oslash;stergaard, P. A., \u0026amp; Brodersen, H. J. (2023). Book of Abstracts: 9th International Conference on Smart Energy Systems. In \u003cem\u003e9th International Conference on Smart Energy Systems\u003c/em\u003e. Aalborg Universitet.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLund, H., Skov, I. R., Thellufsen, J. Z., Sorkn\u0026aelig;s, P., Korberg, A. D., Chang, M., ... \u0026amp; Kany, M. S. (2022). The role of sustainable bioenergy in a fully decarbonised society. \u003cem\u003eRenewable Energy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e196\u003c/em\u003e, 195-203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. \u003cem\u003ePolicy sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e, 323-340.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMee, A., Lyes, M., \u0026amp; Crowe, P. (2021). Energy urbanity and active citizen participation. \u003cem\u003eEnergies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(20), 6515.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoriarty, P., \u0026amp; Honnery, D. (2009). Hydrogen\u0026apos;s role in an uncertain energy future. \u003cem\u003einternational journal of hydrogen energy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31-39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, M. T., \u0026amp; Batel, S. (2024). Which energy citizenship in positive energy districts? A governmentality social psychological analysis of participatory governance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 117-130.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParodi, O., Steglich, A., \u0026amp; Bylund, J. (2023). Real-world lab. \u003cem\u003eHandbook transdisciplinary learning\u003c/em\u003e, 287-296.Petrache et al., 2018;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiekkari, R., \u0026amp; Welch, C. (2018) The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin. \u003cem\u003eThe SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods\u003c/em\u003e, 345-358.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreece, C. (2024). Integrating Renewable Energy Systems into Urban Planning: A Pathway to Sustainable Cities. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Quest\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-09.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRinkinen, J., Shove, E., \u0026amp; Smits, M. (2021). Conceptualising urban density, energy demand and social practice. \u003cem\u003eBuildings \u0026amp; cities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 79-91.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. \u003cem\u003ePlanning Theory, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSareen, S., Albert-Seifried, V., Aelenei, L., Reda, F., Etminan, G., Andreucci, M. B., ... \u0026amp; Neumann, H. M. (2022). Ten questions concerning positive energy districts.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSassenou, L. N., Olivieri, L., Kotnarovsky, G., Longo, D., \u0026amp; Olivieri, F. (2025). Companion modelling for energy transition: A participatory approach to design positive energy districts in Mediterranean cities. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e127\u003c/em\u003e, 104175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, D. A. (1979). The reflective practitioner. \u003cem\u003eNew York\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, D. A., \u0026amp; Argyris, C. (1996). \u003cem\u003eOrganizational learning II: Theory, method and practice\u003c/em\u003e. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSET-Plan Action 3.2. (2018) \u003cem\u003eImplementation Plan: Smart Cities and Communities \u0026ndash; Positive Energy Districts\u003c/em\u003e. European Commission. https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/setplan_smartcities_implementationplan-2.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeyfang, G., \u0026amp; Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and planning C: Government and policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 381-400.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, A., \u0026amp; Stirling, A. (2013). Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. In \u003cem\u003eGovernance for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 159-181). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSovacool, B. K., \u0026amp; Blyth, P. L. (2015). Energy and environmental attitudes in the green state of Denmark: Implications for energy democracy, low carbon transitions, and energy literacy. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e, 304-315.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSovacool, B. K., \u0026amp; Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. \u003cem\u003eApplied energy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e142\u003c/em\u003e, 435-444.Spreco et al., 2022;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSovacool, B.K., Lakshmi Ratan, P., (2012) Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 5268\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStanescu, I., Manolescu, A., \u0026amp; Croitoru, C. (2025). The role of local energy communities to reduce carbon emissions in the urban built environment. In \u003cem\u003eE3S Web of Conferences\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 608, p. 01005). EDP Sciences.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStanilov, K. (Ed.). (2007). \u003cem\u003eThe post-socialist city: Urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 92). Springer Science \u0026amp; Business Media.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteen, K., \u0026amp; Van Bueren, E. (2017). The defining characteristics of urban living labs. \u003cem\u003eTechnology innovation management review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(7).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStirling, A. (2008). \u0026ldquo;Opening up\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;closing down\u0026rdquo; power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. \u003cem\u003eScience, Technology, \u0026amp; Human Values\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 262-294.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSurubaru, N. C., \u0026amp; Nitoiu, C. (2021). One decade onwards: assessing the impact of European Union membership on Bulgaria and Romania. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Politics and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161-166.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F. W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., \u0026amp; van Vuuren, D. (2015). Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change, 35\u003c/em\u003e, 239\u0026ndash;253. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Der Schoor, T., \u0026amp; Scholtens, B. (2015). Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. \u003cem\u003eRenewable and sustainable energy reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e, 666-675.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVennix, J. A., Akkermans, H. A., \u0026amp; Rouwette, E. A. (1996). Group model‐building to facilitate organizational change: an exploratory study. \u003cem\u003eSystem Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39-58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVlados, C. (2019). On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Strategy and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 347-363.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoicu-Dorobanțu, R., Volintiru, C., Popescu, M. F., Nerău, V., \u0026amp; Ștefan, G. (2021). Tackling complexity of the just transition in the EU: Evidence from Romania. \u003cem\u003eEnergies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1509.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evon Wirth, T., Gislason, L., Seidl, R., 2018. Distributed energy systems on a neighbourhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 2618\u0026ndash;2628.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVoorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., \u0026amp; Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. \u003cem\u003ePublic management review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1333-1357.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVo\u0026szlig;, J. P., \u0026amp; Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive government: introduction. In \u003cem\u003eReflexive governance for sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e. Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWittmayer, J. M., de Geus, T., Pel, B., Avelino, F., Hielscher, S., Hoppe, T., ... \u0026amp; H\u0026auml;rtwig, A. (2020). Beyond instrumentalism: Broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems. \u003cem\u003eEnergy research \u0026amp; social science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e, 101689.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfram, M. (2019). Learning urban energy governance for system innovation: an assessment of transformative capacity development in three South Korean cities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30-45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfram, M., Borgstr\u0026ouml;m, S., \u0026amp; Farrelly, M. (2019). Urban transformative capacity: From concept to practice. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 437-448.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin, R. K. (2017). \u003cem\u003eCase study research and applications: Design and methods\u003c/em\u003e. Sage publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"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":"urban-transformations","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"urbt","sideBox":"Learn more about [Urban Transformations](http://urbantransformations.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"42854","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/42854/3","title":"Urban Transformations","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Multi-stakeholder engagement, Sustainability transitions, Urban experimentation, Social equity, Governance frameworks","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6930084/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6930084/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePositive Energy Districts (PEDs) are central to the European Union\u0026rsquo;s vision for climate-neutral cities, aiming to transform urban energy systems at the neighborhood scale through integrated technological, infrastructural, and governance innovations. Beyond technical solutions, PEDs increasingly serve as experimental arenas where new planning practices, institutional arrangements, and stakeholder collaborations are tested amid uncertainty. This article explores experimental governance through co-creation processes, based on empirical evidence from the KINETIC project (2023\u0026ndash;2025), a JPI Urban Europe initiative. Focusing on two urban living labs in Bucharest and Copenhagen, the study analyses the implementation of a co-creation roadmap that facilitates multi-stakeholder engagement, knowledge integration, and collective envisioning of PEDs as drivers of sustainable urban transition. The Bucharest case demonstrates the role of virtual PED models and community empowerment in a post-socialist context, while Copenhagen highlights housing associations\u0026rsquo; intermediary role and the challenges of navigating regulatory complexity within mature energy infrastructures. Drawing on theories of urban experimentation, reflexive governance, and transformative capacity, the findings reveal how co-creation fosters institutional learning, spatial negotiation, and adaptive planning. The study underscores that situated experimental practices enhance governance reflexivity and build capacities for long-term socio-technical transitions, while also surfacing tensions between technocratic agendas and inclusive, just urban futures.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Co-Creating Positive Energy Districts: Experimental Governance and Transformative Capacity in Bucharest and Copenhagen","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-23 02:02:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6930084/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-13T15:27:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-14T09:04:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T10:20:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"158728756672095696225989499466304815950","date":"2025-07-20T01:37:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"66655224873876027178311000892307924315","date":"2025-07-17T11:38:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"162043260801513524329191378350501044157","date":"2025-07-17T10:31:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-17T09:56:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-29T23:39:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-29T23:38:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Urban Transformations","date":"2025-06-19T10:06:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urban-transformations","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"urbt","sideBox":"Learn more about [Urban Transformations](http://urbantransformations.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"42854","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/42854/3","title":"Urban Transformations","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a5586b4e-756d-4eb1-a039-b7630581f023","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-07T15:23:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-23 02:02:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6930084","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6930084","identity":"rs-6930084","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}