Table 1
Data collection methods, sources, and outputs for the four ELLs
| METHODS AND DATA SOURCE | CASES AND VOLUME | COLLECTION TIMEFRAME | MATERIAL/OUTPUTS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary data sources (directly analysed for this study) | |||
| Participants’ observations in ELL sessions – field notes. | Rotterdam 10 sessions, Amsterdam 7, Gemert 15; Nijmegen 12. | October 2023–April 2025. | Typed notes with reflexive memos; selected artefacts (agendas/slides). |
| Semi-structured interviews with ELLs’ facilitators. | 5 interviews (≥1 per lab); 30–60 min., online and in person. | March–April 2025. | Audio-recorded; verbatim transcripts (Teams/Atrain); anonymised. |
| Supplementary/contextual sources (used for case description; not systematically analysed) | |||
| Interviews with local stakeholders. | Rotterdam 22; Amsterdam 9; Gemert 7. | March–June 2023, November 2024–April 2025. | Audio-recorded; verbatim transcripts; anonymised. |
| Fieldwork and desk review. | All cases. | 2023–2025. | Project reports; typed notes. |
Figure 1
The four Dutch case studies undergoing neighbourhood energy transition and renovation.
Sources: Rotterdam: NRC (https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/03/het-wilde-westen-van-rotterdam-moet-straks-klimaatneutraal-wokken-a3975580); Amsterdam: K-flats-Arcam (https://arcam.nl/architectuur-gids/k-flats/); Gemert: Goed Wonen Gemert-Nathan (https://www.nathan.nl/onze-projecten/goed-wonen-gemert); Nijmegen: J. vd Boom ‘Ontwerpbestemmingsplan Nijmegen-Dukenburg 2021’-de Dukenburg (https://dedukenburger.nl/ontwerpbestemmingsplan-nijmegen-dukenburg-2021/).
Table 2
Description of the local contexts where the ELLs were implemented
| BOTU-ROTTERDAM | K-NEIGHBOURHOOD AMSTERDAM ZUIDOOST | GEMERT | NIJMEGEN-DUKENBURG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical and sociocultural context | Early 20th-century harbour district, highly working-class area marked by unemployment, low income and low education, yet sustained by strong networks and activism. Designated Resilient BoTu 2028 renewal pilot. | 1960s modernist high-rise district redeveloped into low/mid-rise mixed housing; highly multicultural with strong local identity. | Historic village in rural North Brabant, with medieval core and post-WWII residential expansion. Traditionally agriculture-based, now facing demographic ageing and economic transition. | 1960s–1970s modernist suburb; from middle- to lower-income; ageing housing; disinvestment; multicultural, older residents; unemployment, low education, weak cohesion, institutional distrust. |
| Building types and performance | Dense pre- and post-war multifamily housing, mostly uninsulated. Apartment blocks, terraced houses, and porch houses. Predominantly energy labels C–G. | Mix of residential types: low-/high-rise and four social housing towers. Mostly post-2000, A–B rated yet underperforming; prefab concrete with little insulation. | Mix of post-war low-rise houses, small apartment blocks, and older farmhouses. Energy performance varies; many pre-1990 homes poorly insulated with outdated heating. | Mix of 1960s–1970s mid/high-rise blocks, row housing, and low-rise flats, mainly E–G labels. Renovated sections improved but remain substandard. |
| Ownership | Predominantly social housing, limited private ownership. | Mix social housing, private rent and owner-occupied. | Mainly owner-occupied housing with some social rentals managed by the local social Housing association (SHA). | Primarily social housing (three SHAs), with pockets of owner-occupied homes. |
| Energy transition and renovation strategy | BoTu Energy District: gas-free by 2035 through district heating, insulation, and envelope upgrades, coupled with social initiatives. | District heating connections through the Warme Amsterdam programme. Social housing partial envelope insulation. | Street-based pilots for sustainable renovation, renewable energy integration, and circular building for over a decade. | Pilot district for natural gas phase-out, expanding district heating network, and hybrid solutions. |
| Energy (in)justices | Energy-inefficient housing, energy poverty. Justice claims supported through multilingual outreach, co-creation and affordable housing. | Energy-inefficient housing, high energy bills, limited participation, institutional neglect. | Energy-inefficient housing, spread out pockets of low-income households with systemic vulnerabilities, unaffordable housing, distrust, stigmas, ageing population, and transport poverty. | Ageing social housing burdens elderly and low-income households. Decision monopoly of SHAs/municipality. Digital literacy and language barriers, historical underrepresentation in urban renewal processes. |
[i] Note: See extended version in Table S2 in the supplemental data online.
Figure 2
Initial development of the four ELLs within ongoing neighbourhood energy transition initiatives.
Table 3
Key stakeholders involved in the ELLs
| BOTU-ROTTERDAM | AMSTERDAM ZUIDOOST | GEMERT | NIJMEGEN-DUKENBURG |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3
Workshop setting and outputs from Rotterdam ELL sessions.
Note: Collective discussions focused on residents’ resilience, institutional perspectives, business case development and monitoring/learning.
Figure 4
Neighbourhood sociotechnical values maps developed through Gemert and Nijmegen-Dukenburg ELLs.
Figure 5
The Warme Wintermiddag (warm winter afternoon) organised in the Lankforst neighbourhood of Dukenburg (February 2025).
Note: The event combined informal gatherings with opportunities to meet energy coaches, join a guided ecology walk and raise concerns about the heating transition. The top-right image shows neighbours discussing their plan for a small neighbourhood improvement.