energies

Review
Innovations for Holistic and Sustainable Transitions
Phoebe Koundouri 1,2,3, * , Angelos Alamanos 4 , Stathis Devves 1,2 , Conrad Landis 1,2 and Kostantinos Dellis 1,2

1 Sustainable Development Unit, Athena Research Center, 15125 Athens, Greece

2 ReSEES Research Laboratory, School of Economics, Athens University of Economics and Business,
10434 Athens, Greece
3 Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Denmark Technical University (DTU),
2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
4 Independent Researcher, 10243 Berlin, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Energy system planning has evolved from a narrow focus on engineering and supply
works towards addressing more complex, multifactorial challenges. Increasingly challenged by
climate change, extreme events, economic shocks, and altered supply demand patterns, the analysis
of energy systems requires holistic approaches based on data-driven models, taking into account key
socio-economic factors. We draw insights from reviewing the literature, indicating the need to cover
the following major gaps: the shift to transdisciplinary approaches, incorporating environmental
system analysis; resilient and sustainable energy designs based on flexible portfolios of renewable
mixes; the integration of socio-economic aspects, economic analyses and behavioural models to
ensure energy systems are not only technically sound but socially acceptable and viable; the need
for stakeholder engagement considering the human angle in energy security and behavioural shifts.
Responding to these pressing challenges and emerging needs, the Global Climate Hub (GCH)
initiative, operating under the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, offers a conceptual
framework, leveraging transdisciplinary approaches. In this Concept Paper, we present for the first
time the idea of the GCH as a framework that we believe has the potential to address the modern
holistic needs for energy system analysis and policymaking. By setting the conceptual/theoretical
ground of our suggested approach, we aim to provide guidance for innovative combinations of
cutting-edge models, socio-economic narratives, and inclusive interaction with relevant stakeholders
for the development and the long-term implementation of sustainable pathways.

Citation: Koundouri, P.; Alamanos,

Keywords: energy; energy policy; integrated modelling; Global Climate Hub; system innovation
A.; Devves, S.; Landis, C.; Dellis, K.
Innovations for Holistic and
approach; stakeholder participation; environmental economics; valuation
Sustainable Transitions. Energies 2024,
17, 5184. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en17205184
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Ignacio Mauleón
The considerations underpinning energy policies have evolved significantly. Initially,
Received: 27 September 2024 the focus was on providing electricity (primarily) through large-scale infrastructure projects
Revised: 7 October 2024 like power plants, transmission lines, and dams [1]. This supply-side approach dominated
Accepted: 10 October 2024 the energy landscape, with governments and utilities investing heavily in centralized gen-
Published: 18 October 2024
eration and distribution systems [2]. Over time, the limitations of this narrow, supply-side
approach became clear, as the (often overlooked) environmental and social impacts of such
projects became increasingly evident [2]. The construction and operation of power plants,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
dams, and transmission lines often led to habitat destruction, water scarcity, air pollution,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and community displacement [3]. To provide a few examples justifying these impacts,
This article is an open access article there have been studies highlighting the deforestation and biodiversity risks of energy
distributed under the terms and investments, revealing that significant portions of forests and biodiversity are threatened
conditions of the Creative Commons due to infrastructure projects, including energy developments [4]. Other studies show how
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the ecosystem services can be affected by certain energy development decisions [5]. Also,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the broader ecological impacts of traditional energy generation methods such as fossil fuel-
4.0/). and nuclear-powered plants, have been reported long ago [6,7].

Energies 2024, 17, 5184. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17205184 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 5184 2 of 16

The gradual realization of such impacts coincided with an increasing sensitization of

the broader sustainability transition of the economy and energy systems [8]. Sustainable
energy policies have become a key focus in recent international policies, most notably
within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. SDG 7 specifically aims to “ensure access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all”, recognizing energy as a critical enabler
for inclusive development. This goal emphasizes the importance of universal access to
energy, increasing the share of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency, as
essential components for achieving broader development objectives [9]. Furthermore,
energy is interconnected with all other SDGs, including health (SDG3), climate action
(SDG13), and sustainable cities (SDG11), highlighting its central role in fostering sustainable
economic growth (SDG8) and addressing global challenges [10,11]. Also, the interaction
between energy and digital transition, the need for automation and AI integration in
energy assets performance management (APM) approach and the impact on demand
patterns in industrial sector are leading to the interconnection of energy with additional
SDGs, such as SDG9 (Industry Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG12 (Responsible
Consumption—also related to circular economy principles). The urgency of transitioning
to sustainable energy systems is underscored by the need for integrated approaches that
optimize energy’s effects across various sectors, ensuring equity and inclusiveness in the
process [12].
Countries are making varied progress in energy decarbonization, with some leading
the way while others face significant challenges [10,13], with income inequalities being
the main driver of the potential to use more renewable energy sources [14]. Despite some
advancements [15], no country is fully on track for a complete energy transition. Moreover,
failures and setbacks are not uncommon, as showcased by the cancellation of major projects,
policy reversals, and public opposition to certain energy technologies [16–19]. This gener-
ates more difficulties in the efficient use of resources that are absolutely necessary for the
deployment of clean energy, such as water reservoirs, or electrical infrastructure. Moreover,
the extreme temperature limits (both around high or low temperature limits) accelerate the
need for more cooling or heating demand. This underscores the need for stronger policies
and financing, based on solid and holistic data-driven pathways and socially acceptable
solutions to accelerate the shift and achieve global climate goals.
This Concept Paper supports this assertion by presenting an overview of the evolu-
tion of energy policy toward transdisciplinarity and the inclusion of more sophisticated
technical aspects, and the integration of socio-economic and human-centric perspectives,
and environmental modelling to control for unintended impacts. We examine examples
that highlight the necessity for such approaches and their growing prevalence. Building
on these findings, we provide a way forward to cover these gaps. We discuss how these
aspects can be effectively integrated into a comprehensive, innovative, and transferable
framework, which we present here for the first time. This framework is the blueprint of a
research-led initiative, the Global Climate Hub, aimed at fostering holistic and sustainable
energy policymaking. We present its conceptual structure and innovative elements, setting
the theoretical grounds for more holistic and inclusive energy policy assessments and
applications, based on this idea.

2. Bridging Transdisciplinary Science with Society

2.1. Towards Transdisciplinarity: From Engineering Works to Integrated Modelling
The transition from the large energy-supply engineering works to a new era of carbon-
neutral and energy-autonomous (or decentralized) systems is characterized by a broader
sustainability transformation. This has meant moving beyond a focus on electricity supply
to incorporate demand-side management, energy and economic efficiency, renewable
energy and smart grids [20] that aim to be resilient to other complex challenges, such as
natural hazards and economic market shocks [21–23]. The sustainability transition we
seek today emphasizes renewable energy, energy efficiency, demand-side management,
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 3 of 16

and smart grid technologies. Energy policy has also shifted towards more integrated
approaches, based on model-driven simulations of the demand and fuel availability for
different economic sectors, providing policymakers with multiple plausible scenarios and
solutions [24,25].
One prominent example of more holistic simulation modelling is the Low Emissions
Analysis Platform (LEAP), a widely used scenario-based software tool that supports a
range of methodologies for energy policy analysis and climate change mitigation assess-
ments [26,27]. LEAP allows users to track energy consumption, production and resource
extraction in all sectors of an economy, while accounting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions [28]. LEAP supports bottom-up end-use accounting techniques as well as top-down
macroeconomic modelling on the demand side [26]. On the supply side, it provides account-
ing and simulation methodologies for electric sector generation and capacity expansion
planning [29]. Another example is the Balmorel model, an open-source partial equilibrium
model that simulates the electricity and combined heat and power sectors [30]. Balmorel
optimizes investments and operations in electricity and district heating systems, consid-
ering demand, transmission, storage, and generation technologies [31,32]. Numerous
other applications offer similar capabilities, including the PRIMES model, developed by
E3Modelling, that addresses energy demand, supply, prices, and emissions across Euro-
pean countries, integrating microeconomic foundations with engineering aspects to assess
policy impacts [33,34]. The MATRIX model focuses on energy price shocks and stabilization
policies, providing insights into macroeconomic dynamics and policy responses [35,36].
Furthermore, custom applications like the European Electricity Market Model (EMMA)
analyzes the market value of variable renewables and their integration into energy sys-
tems [37,38].
These integrated modelling approaches represent a shift from traditional siloed ap-
proaches to energy policy. By considering multiple sectors, explicit economic factors, new
technologies, the environmental angle of energy policies through GHG emissions and
fuel sources availability, and different future scenarios (often connected with other disci-
plines, e.g., climate science, natural hazards, economics, or public health), they enable a
more holistic and transdisciplinary understanding of the energy system [39]. This is cru-
cial for navigating the complex challenges of the sustainability transition, which requires
coordinating across disciplines, stakeholders, and scales [40,41].
However, implementing a truly transdisciplinary approach remains challenging. Frag-
mentation between disciplines, difficulties in data and knowledge exchange, and the need
to integrate social, economic, market, and technical aspects of the energy transition, along
with the required workforce, are ongoing barriers [10,12,42]. Overcoming these challenges
will require continued innovation in modelling methodologies, innovative model coupling
in terms of environmental and socio-economic feedbacks, stakeholder engagement and
efficient communication, and the application of systems thinking to energy policy [43].

2.2. Towards Resilience and Sustainability

In the face of climate change, with increasing extreme events such as heatwaves,
storms, floods, and hurricanes disrupting energy infrastructures, the need for building
resilient societies has become imperative [44]. Such challenges, combined with cyberattacks,
geopolitical tensions and population movements changing the energy demand patterns,
underscore even more the need for developing resilient energy systems that can adapt to
and withstand the growing frequency and intensity of such phenomena and challenges,
ensuring a stable, reliable, and sustainable energy supply for the future [45].
Resilient energy systems are characterized by high redundancy, functional diversity,
adaptability, and modularity, allowing them to withstand disruptions, maintain essential
energy services and recover quickly [46]. The literature is rich on resilient energy systems,
focusing mainly on their technical and modelling aspects, while recognizing that building
resilience is not enough; energy systems must also transition towards sustainability to
mitigate long-term threats like climate change [44,47,48]. We argue that the proper consid-
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 4 of 16

eration of the environmental system, and the socio-economic drivers of the societies, are
the main levers we need to look at in order to achieve sustainability.
The overall transition and direction towards covering these gaps, summarizing the
main findings of the literature review of this section, are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. The transition from one-sided and technocratic solutions towards more holistic, multifactorial
and transdisciplinary approaches in energy planning.

Existing/Prevailing Approaches Future Research and Policy Directions

Engineering works mainly Integrated modelling, considering different energy sources,
focused on energy supply flexible portfolios, environmental and social implications.
Resilience to various and diverse hazards and systems
disturbances, including climate and extreme phenomena,
Building resilient energy altered demand patterns and economic shocks.
infrastructure Sustainability is also an increasing factor, as energy planning
includes the management of environmental and
socio-economic factors.
Combination of environmental modelling, socio-economic
Predominantly technocratic
assessments, including environmental valuation and human
solutions
perspective for just and equitable decarbonization pathways.

2.2.1. Integrating Environmental Modelling, Flexible Solutions and Energy Portfolios

With respect to the environmental system, as mentioned in the previous section,
most energy models consider factors such as GHG emissions and fuel source availability.
Although this is a significant first step, environmental modelling must be integrated into
energy system modelling, as the feedbacks between energy sources—such as water, wind,
solar—and their impacts on GHG emissions, pollution, and resource depletion are deeply
interconnected [49].
It is well established that energy is a big part of ‘nexus’ approaches, namely, the cou-
pled modelling or at least the joint consideration of water–energy–food–climate–ecosystem
nexuses [50–53]. Understanding and modelling these resources for energy production while
considering their roles as pollution receptors and recognizing their finite nature are crucial.
For instance, a one-sided reliance on any one resource, like water for hydropower, can lead
to depletion, habitat destruction, and long-term environmental degradation, as well as
unintended economic consequences [54–56]. By diversifying their energy mix, countries
can mitigate environmental risks, ensure stability in power generation, and reduce the risk
of overdependence on a single source, while accelerating decarbonization [57]. Thus, the
two “keywords” we need to highlight at this stage are integrated energy-environmental mod-
elling and flexibility of energy mixes and solutions, developing portfolios of renewable sources
(e.g., wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal energy, circular solutions along with storage
infrastructure), to achieve autonomy, balance usage and preserve critical natural resources.

2.2.2. Integrating Socio-Economic Considerations

With respect to the socio-economic angle, it is required to provide (a) economically
feasible solutions that support the full deployment and market uptake of renewables;
(b) integrated information to policymakers, by considering the environmental values
through environmental valuation; (c) solutions that can act as sustainable pathways, sup-
ported by strong financial instruments; (d) behavioural changes to own and manage such
pathways, and adopting new technologies.
In particular, economically feasible solutions should not only align with environmental
goals but should also be cost-effective and financially viable for both consumers and in-
dustries, ensuring that the transition to sustainable energy systems will not create financial
burdens, but will be accessible, fair, and competitive in the market [58]. In promoting
the energy transition, one should not underestimate the issue of energy poverty, which
undermines social inclusion and hinders people’s ability to benefit from the technical
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 5 of 16

advancements in green energy. In addition, scholars and policymakers should also consider
the distinction between energy poverty in the Global North, which is mainly associated
with affordability, and the Global South where the pivotal issue is accessibility.
Besides the economic and technical data, environmental values must be taken also
into account. This is in line with what we described in the previous sub-section regarding
the integration of environmental modelling, as it is crucial to incorporate environmental
valuation insights in energy policymaking. Environmental valuation practically quantifies
the economic worth of ecosystem services (e.g., clean air, water, soil, etc.) and the costs of
environmental degradation, helping policymakers make informed decisions that balance
development with environmental protection [59,60].
Robust and tailored financial instruments, such as green bonds, subsidies, and public–
private partnerships, should support such policies meeting our energy needs in a sus-
tainable manner by incentivizing investments in sustainable energy technologies and
infrastructure, renewable mixes and flexible portfolios [61–63]. The state and international
financial institutions have a material part to play in the energy transition by financing basic
research, provide the necessary de-risking for private sector engagement in the most ambi-
tious projects and contribute directly to value creation through research and application.
Technological advances in areas like weather forecasting, demand response, and en-
ergy storage are enabling the integration of high shares of variable renewable generation
and greener fuels without compromising reliability [64–66]. Public support and social ac-
ceptance are crucial for the adoption and diffusion of sustainable energy technologies and
renewable sources, as well as for more efficient energy demand and consumption manage-
ment [67,68]. However, this requires behavioural changes that are likely to happen through
public engagement, education and sensitization, and making equitable access and fairness
in the distribution of costs and benefits central aspects of energy policymaking [69,70].
Energy transitions that are designed with local communities in mind—considering their
needs, preferences, and concerns—are more likely to succeed and avoid opposition. Public
acceptance of sustainable energy projects, for instance, can be improved by ensuring that
local communities are engaged and understand the ways that they can directly benefit from
the deployment of wind, solar, or hydropower projects, as well as through job creation and
market incentives focusing on the adoption of new technologies, improved infrastructure,
or shared ownership models.

2.3. The Human Angle

Energy policymaking should aim to create resilient systems that are environmentally
sound, while considering their socio-economic components. However, another aspect
that must also be taken into account, is the human angle and this is also reflected by the
relevant literature [71,72]. In order to make energy systems equitable and reach long-
term sustainability and public trust, the human perspective is a key element. Key aspects
to consider, as part of this human perspective, include cultural factors, individual and
community well-being, public acceptance, and economic considerations [73].
Understanding cultural contexts can enhance the design and implementation of en-
ergy policies, ensuring they resonate with local values and practices (e.g., energy sources,
fuel types, infrastructure characteristics, and demand and consumption patterns) [74]. As
analyzed in the previous section, public acceptance is key for the success of energy policies,
and it should be clear that it often hinges on the perceived fairness and benefits of pro-
posed changes, resulting from human/personal drivers of any community [73]. Moreover,
prioritizing well-being involves addressing how energy systems impact daily life, health,
and comfort, which can foster greater public trust and support for sustainability initia-
tives [75]. Such elements of personal feeling, trust, culture and well-being characteristics
are recognized as decision-making drivers, and they can lead to more effective and widely
supported solutions [76].
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 6 of 16

A crucial element here is the notion of human security, which is linked to the need for
individuals and communities to feel safe and secure in their access to energy, especially
electricity and heating [77]. This concept is closely related to environmental security, water
security, energy security, and the overall sense of security that can be studied at a personal
or community scale [78]. Access to affordable and clean energy is inextricably linked to
environmental security; nonetheless, it is also associated with economic security as well as
personal security. Communities that are left behind in the energy transition also face signif-
icant economic adversities through higher energy costs, technological lock-in and outflow
of skilled individuals and are expected to experience societal and political tensions. This is
especially evident and crucial during extreme weather events, economic crises, or other
shocks and disturbances, where energy insecurity can exacerbate vulnerabilities [79,80].
Human security focuses on the individual rather than the nation state, which is conceptu-
ally intertwined with the SDGs framework, underscoring the need for societies to eradicate
violent conflict, hunger, multidimensional poverty, hunger, disease, and oppression of any
minority or group [77].
Despite the recognition of the need to consider the human angle in energy policymak-
ing, and its increasing trends in the literature, it is still an overlooked issue that needs more
attention, and robust metrics to measure it [81,82]. A people-centered approach helps to
develop a locally attuned understanding of energy security (and human security in general)
and shaping informed responses tailored to the contextual attributes of different communi-
ties. In the future, it is likely that researchers will focus more systematically on effectively
measuring the dimension of human security—and all its aspects—as a contextual factor
that is necessary to significantly influence and shape sustainable energy behaviors and
ensure the acceptability of policies.

3. The Approach of the Global Climate Hub as a Response

The previous section shows the trend towards and importance of considering compre-
hensive interdisciplinary approaches encompassing environmental, social, economic and
human systems related to energy systems and policy. By employing integrated approaches
that consider these elements, policymakers can design interventions that not only promote
renewable energy adoption but also enhance overall societal well-being. In this section, we
present a framework to successfully and efficiently combine these elements and support
the sustainability of long-term energy solutions.
Under the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UN SDSN),
we developed the Global Climate Hub (GCH), an international research-led and research-
funded initiative aiming to meet the needs mentioned in Section 2, while providing long-
term sustainable policies and energy secure pathways. The GCH acts as an initiative
for change, leveraging science-based models and solutions for a holistic and equitable
transition towards a more resilient and sustainable world.
The GCH is a diverse group of research teams with the necessary expertise to tackle
modern sustainability challenges, including energy-related challenges, in a coordinated
way. It provides actionable pathways resulting from comprehensive modelling of natu-
ral/physical systems, resilience assessments of climate change and extreme phenomena,
socio-economic models, and living labs with extensive and transformative stakeholder
engagement and co-development of solutions [83].
The GCH’s approach covers all the gaps and areas outlined in the previous section [84].
It combines different disciplines (e.g., climate, natural systems, energy systems, public
health, economics and social science, among others); it is transdisciplinary in the way it
coordinates and uses this diverse expertise to develop holistic solutions; it considers the
socio-economic aspects and involves co-developing solutions with relevant stakeholders,
ensuring their wide co-ownership, and accelerating the necessary investments for their
implementation; it develops and uses innovative metrics to account for the human security
angles of the policies under consideration; it provides programs for long-term training and
education to sustain the proposed sustainable pathways.
 lic health, economics and social science, among others); it is transdisciplinary in the way
it coordinates and uses this diverse expertise to develop holistic solutions; it considers the
socio-economic aspects and involves co-developing solutions with relevant stakeholders,
ensuring their wide co-ownership, and accelerating the necessary investments for their
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 implementation; it develops and uses innovative metrics to account for the human secu- 7 of 16
rity angles of the policies under consideration; it provides programs for long-term training
and education to sustain the proposed sustainable pathways.
The
The described
described research
research approach
approach isis unique
unique and powerful in
and powerful in its holistic nature
its holistic and
nature and
transferability. It can be applied to any country/region, capitalizing on the UN’s
transferability. It can be applied to any country/region, capitalizing on the UN’s SDSN SDSN
network
network consisting
consisting ofof multiple
multiple local
local and
and regional hubs and
regional hubs and dedicated
dedicated research
research teams
teams
worldwide [85].
worldwide [85].
In order to further specify how the GCH’s approach works in practice, it is necessary
to explain
explain the
thefive
fivepillars/innovations
pillars/innovationson on
which the the
which solutions’ development
solutions’ is based
development (Fig-
is based
ure 1).
(Figure 1).

Figure
Figure 1.1. The
Thefive
fiveinnovations
innovationsofofthethe GCH,
GCH, summarizing
summarizing its its approach
approach to sustainability
to sustainability problems
problems (not
(not solely water security), in an indicative schematic showing their interactions. Integrated models
solely water security), in an indicative schematic showing their interactions. Integrated models are
are used/developed (I), which are coupled and updated (II) to simulate real-world scenarios. Based
used/developed (I), which are coupled and updated (II) to simulate real-world scenarios. Based
on their insights and the stakeholders’ input, the socio-economic narrative is developed, simulating
on their
the socialinsights and the stakeholders’
and economic systems (III). input, the socio-economic
The results so far are the narrative is developed,
basis of the simulating
co-design of solution
the social and
pathways witheconomic systems(IV),
the stakeholders (III).within
The results so far interaction
a two-way are the basis of the
with theco-design ofensuring
models (I), solution
pathways with the stakeholders
realistic representation (IV), within
of the problems a two-way
and solutions. interaction
Data withare
and models thepublicly
models (I), ensuring
accessible to
realistic representation
enhance reproducibilityof theThe
(V). problems and solutions.
combination Data and innovations
of these particular models are publicly accessible
and the way to
they can
interact
enhanceand adapt to diverse
reproducibility sustainability
(V). The combination problems
of these is the coreinnovations
particular novel contribution
and the of
waythethey
GCH’s
can
philosophy.
interact and Source:
adapt to[84].
diverse sustainability problems is the core novel contribution of the GCH’s
philosophy. Source: [84].

I. Development of advanced cross-sectoral system dynamics models

Cutting-edge models, built on data-driven and mathematical simulations, are essential
for capturing the trade-offs and dynamics across natural and infrastructure systems. These
models analyze interactions among various systems (such as energy, water, land, atmo-
sphere, food, etc.), allowing us to simulate scenarios and predict system behavior under
different conditions. These conditions can refer to climate change projections, extreme
phenomena and shocks, and management or policy scenarios to evaluate their impacts.
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 8 of 16

II. Support through an AI-driven digital infrastructure

A robust AI-driven digital infrastructure has been developed to support the manage-
ment of large datasets generated by cross-sectoral simulations and facilitate the different
models’ integration. It automates the harmonization, updating, and handling of big data,
while enabling the development of digital twins—virtual replicas of physical systems. This
infrastructure is crucial for integrating different modelling results that are particularly
useful to study together and for providing visualizations that enhance understanding.
III. Bridging holistic scientific approaches with civil society
To ensure that sustainable pathways are fair and publicly acceptable, there must be a
connection between holistic scientific models and civil society. This is achieved by devel-
oping socio-economic narratives that are tailored to specific cases, integrating economic
models, valuation approaches, equilibrium models, and analyses of trade-offs. These
narratives help to contextualize scientific insights in a way that is relevant to the everyday
lives of individuals, promoting policies and solutions that are equitable, sustainable, and
economically sound.
IV. Transformative participatory frameworks for stakeholder engagement
Engaging stakeholders in the co-design of sustainable pathways is critical to ensuring
these solutions are both scientifically grounded and socially accepted. Transformative
participatory frameworks involve communities, policymakers, and experts throughout
the process, promoting collaboration and shared ownership of the outcomes. The GCH
has an entire research unit working on such frameworks using state-of-the-art models,
technologies and tools for living labs in a human-centric way, ensuring that solutions are
tailored to the needs and values of stakeholders who must develop a sense of ownership of
these solutions and their long-term sustainable and trusted implementation.
V. Open science and open access principles for sustainable pathways
All our data, models, and scientific tools developed are openly accessible, allowing for
broad participation in the scientific process. We strongly believe that the sustainable path-
ways we develop should be built on the principles of open science, ensuring transparency
and collaboration. This ensures that the knowledge and infrastructure developed can be
used by researchers, policymakers, and the public alike, fostering innovation and enabling
more comprehensive, inclusive solutions that are freely shared for the common good.
As mentioned, the GCH consists of nine research units, each one with its own research
head and committed members. These units cover a wide range of expertise in digital ap-
plications, climate science, land–water–food–energy–biodiversity systems, human health,
solutions acceleration, labour markets, policy, finance, participatory approaches, education
and training programs (Figure 2). It is their coordinated and systemic work that enables
the provision and implementation of holistic, sustainable pathways, triggering the neces-
sary transformations in all layers of the complex challenges our societies face [86]. This
coordinated approach follows the five principles (innovations) of Figure 1, making the
applications possible for any problem, scale and region. Indeed, such problems include
the just decarbonization of energy systems, while considering the environmental and
socio-economic implications highlighted in the previous sections.
According to the illustrated approach of Figure 1, the research units of Figure 2
use state-of the-art tools, models and approaches (for their respective fields) to provide
new, innovative, and socially acceptable pathways. The solution pathways provided by
the GCH can be applied anywhere and be tailored to any context, and there are several
ongoing projects for various case studies at national, regional, and continental scales, taking
advantage of the wide, global SDSN coverage (Figure 2).
 According to the illustrated approach of Figure 1, the research units of Figure 2 use
state-of the-art tools, models and approaches (for their respective fields) to provide new,
innovative, and socially acceptable pathways. The solution pathways provided by the
GCH can be applied anywhere and be tailored to any context, and there are several ongo-
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 9 of 16
ing projects for various case studies at national, regional, and continental scales, taking
advantage of the wide, global SDSN coverage (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. The
Thenine
nineresearch
researchunits
unitsofof
thethe
GCH. Several
GCH. units
Several work
units on the
work on modelling of systems
the modelling (first
of systems
row), while other units focus on the development of solutions, pathways, their implementation and
(first row), while other units focus on the development of solutions, pathways, their implementation
training required to sustain them in the long run (second row). All these efforts follow the principles
and training required to sustain them in the long run (second row). All these efforts follow the
of open science based on shareable data and modelling applications (unit 1). Adapted from [86].
principles of open science based on shareable data and modelling applications (unit 1). Adapted
from [86].
4. The GCH Concept Example for Analyzing Energy Systems
4. The InGCH Conceptwe
this section, Example
providefor a Analyzing
more in-depth Energy Systems of what sort of work and
explanation
whatIntools
this can be used
section, by eachaone
we provide moreof the nine research
in-depth explanation units
of of the sort
what GCH, of indicatively
work and what for
energy
tools cansystems
be usedanalysis, along
by each one of with some
the nine application
research units examples.
of the GCH, indicatively for energy
systemsTheanalysis,
“climatology” unit (unit
along with some 2) provides climate
application examples. change scenarios, and their projec-
tionsThedownscaled to the region of interest, allowing
“climatology” unit (unit 2) provides climate change us toscenarios,
explore their impacts
and their on key
projections
variables (e.g.,
downscaled impact
to the regionofoffuture temperature
interest, allowing us and rainfall their
to explore on energy
impacts demand and con-
on key variables
sumption).
(e.g., impactThis practically
of future can be achieved
temperature by downscaling
and rainfall on energy Regional
demand Circulation Models
and consumption).
(RCMs)
This for instance,
practically can beproviding
achieved sets
byofdownscaling
plausible future conditions
Regional in a studied
Circulation Modelsregion/area,
(RCMs)
thatinstance,
for can affectproviding
energy-related
sets ofparameters and patterns
plausible future conditions [87,88].
in aAlso,
studiedtheregion/area,
study of extreme that
phenomena
can (e.g., historic parameters
affect energy-related floods, earthquakes, hurricanes,
and patterns [87,88].etc.) is covered
Also, the studyby ofthisextreme
unit in
order to provide
phenomena (e.g.,ahistoric
description of aearthquakes,
floods, similar disturbance.
hurricanes,Thus,etc.)
the energy systems’
is covered perfor-
by this unit
in order
mance cantobeprovide a description
tested against of a similar
such phenomena to disturbance.
explore how toThus, makethe themenergy
more systems’
resilient
performance
[89]. can be tested against such phenomena to explore how to make them more
resilient
The[89].
“systems modelling” unit (unit 3) focuses on the modelling of natural/physical
systemsTheto “systems
providemodelling” unit (unit
us with integrated 3) focusesto
assessments onunderstand
the modelling howofsuch
natural/physical
systems func-
systems to provide us with integrated assessments to understand
tion. In particular, we develop and apply models simulating land-use changes, how such systems func-
land
tion. In particular, we develop and apply models simulating
productivity, and mainly monitor urbanization (based on remote sensing techniques, land-use changes, land
ac-
productivity, and mainly
cording to [90,91]) monitor
rates that urbanization
directly affect energy (based on remote
demand. Such sensing
insightstechniques,
are connected ac-
cording
to models to of
[90,91]) rates thatofdirectly
the dynamics affect energy
land, agriculture, fooddemand. Suchand
production insights
dietsare connected
(based on the
to models
FABLE of the dynamics
Calculator of land,
[92]), which also agriculture,
affect energyfood use production and diets
patterns. Another key(based on the
parameter in
FABLE Calculator [92]), which also affect energy use patterns.
energy planning is hydropower, so we also employ water management and hydrologicalAnother key parameter in
energy
modelsplanning
to obtain is hydropower,
estimates on thesoavailability
we also employ water management
and potential use constraints and[93].
hydrological
models to obtain estimates on the availability and potential use constraints
The “energy” unit (unit 4) is dedicated to the development and application of energy- [93].
The “energy”
emissions models unit (unit 4) isdata-driven
to provide dedicated toinsights
the development and application
for all sectors of energy-
of the economy. In
emissions models to provide data-driven insights for all sectors of the economy. In par-
ticular, we use the Balmorel model [94], a fully sector-coupled energy system approach
to explore plausible cross-sectoral decarbonization pathways based on the adoption of
greener fuels as supply sources [95]. Also, we use the LEAP model for more thorough
assessments of the energy demand, costs and prices, and affordability of various policy
scenarios [26]. This unit covers all sectors of the economy, namely residential, services,
agriculture and forestry, industry, and transportation. In particular, for the maritime sector,
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 10 of 16

we have developed the MaritimeGCH model, which integrates economic, energy, fuel,
emission and environmental factors, with economic and European policy considerations to
provide pathways for sustainable shipping [96].
The “public health” unit (unit 5) analyzes the effects of various energy policies in
human health. These can be associated with emissions, their future evolution and the
impact of different decarbonization pathways [97]. The tools used are econometric models
for the impact assessment and policy analyses to provide mitigation recommendations [98].
The “economics” unit (unit 7) develops the socio-economic narratives for the inte-
gration of several of the parameters and results mentioned above into robust economic
models, providing finance options for a just transition [99]. The tools used by this unit cover
environmental valuation techniques to integrate their insights into energy policymaking
to make it more holistic [100] and equilibrium models for the description/simulation of
the overall picture of the economy under recent policies and sustainable decarbonization
solutions [101,102]. An innovative example of this approach that is worth mentioning is
the use of the environmental valuation of the ecosystem services (the benefits of having
healthier ecosystems by adopting flexible renewable mixes) and the health impacts (better
health due to reduces GHG emissions) to develop subsidies for certain energy policies.
These aim to boost the uptake of innovative and more sustainable measures by local en-
ergy suppliers. Such measures refer to the use of energy-autonomous solar power units,
enabling the operation of recycling and/or water reuse options. Furthermore, solutions
related to finance opportunities and labour markets are also developed to ensure that the
decarbonization pathways will be fully sustainable and will not happen at the expense of
economic outputs or employment, but will in fact lead to increased productivity and the
creation of greener jobs [103,104].
The “transformative participation” unit (unit 8) includes the whole process of stake-
holder engagement, spanning from the early stages of model development (interacting
with the aforementioned units) to the common understanding of the problems that must
be tackled, the existing solutions and approaches, and the development of sustainable
pathways by both researchers and diverse stakeholders. Sophisticated tools and software
such as LivingLabModeler [105] or MIRO [106] and technologies (e.g., Virtual Reality) are
used to make the experience realistic and efficient. This unit ensures the inclusion of the
social and human/personal angle in energy policymaking and planning. The develop-
ment of novel Human Security metrics and newly developed Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) enable the measurement of a crucial decision-making driver for sustainable energy
transitions, revealing hidden elements (e.g., psychological, safety, etc.) for more efficient
development of implementable solutions [77].
The application of these solutions is the focus of the “innovation and acceleration”
unit (unit 6). It mobilizes local governance, technology holders, start-ups, public–private
partnerships, and all parties involved to uptake the designed pathways [107,108]. They
become owners of the proposed solutions, giving particular importance to the inclusive,
fair and equitable allocation of their benefits [109].
The “education” unit (unit 9) designs tailored training and upskilling programs to
ensure the viability of the solutions [110]. These will be managed by the local stakeholders,
after the project is finished to ensure that the necessary expertise stays in place for the
successful long-term management of the developed solutions [111].
All the data, models, and insights produced by such a process follow the principles
of open science. Unit 1 is currently developing a powerful AI-supported infrastructure to
host these insights and make them publicly available.

5. Concluding Remarks
The presented approach of the GCH is a comprehensive and systemic framework
that enables researchers and stakeholders to understand the natural and socio-economic
systems, realize the multifaceted problems, explore and co-design solutions, and sustain
them in the long run. It accomplishes this by addressing the gaps and trends presented
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 11 of 16

in Section 2, as it offers interdisciplinary collaboration, coordination between scientists

and stakeholders, ownership of solutions, and integration of socio-economic and human-
centered perspectives into the developed pathways.
This Concept Paper is in essence a conceptual description of our vision towards
sustainability, while it offers a preliminary picture of how it can practically work. There
are currently several projects underway based on this approach, and although none of
them are complete, we believe it was necessary and particularly useful to present here its
conceptual foundations.
At this point, it is worth mentioning a few examples of such projects that are underway.
We have started simulating the climate, energy, social and economic conditions of four
European cities, along with the respective risks (natural, climatic, and supply chain) they
face. This holistic simulation will be used to develop a tool to help public stakeholders
and citizens assess the resilience of energy systems within the built environment, across
multiple scales ranging from buildings to urban areas and territories. The aim of this
project is to enhance preparedness and responsiveness throughout the life cycle of energy
systems. A key element of the approach (in line with what we described in the previous
sections) is the inclusion of human well-being, health, and quality of life as core metrics
for evaluating resilience. Another example project that recently launched looks at the
water–climate–energy–food nexus and its coupling with our socio-economic models to
develop net-zero pathways at the European scale. The focus is on job creation, enhanced
wellbeing and environmental stability. These projects take the GCH’s multidisciplinary
approach, incorporating socio-economic, engineering, climate, and life sciences, while
integrating relevant European and international policies and initiatives.
As these projects are underway, we cannot present any results at the moment. How-
ever, the aim of this paper was to present the concept of the GCH’s approach and the
innovations it mobilizes at a theoretical level, rather to show the specific results of such
applications. But it is worth noting two interesting observations from the ongoing research
so far that apply for all case studies. First, it is difficult to make stakeholders understand
that we need to build resilient energy and environmental systems to increasingly severe
climatic threats. The understanding that extreme events for instance are not exceptions,
but are likely to be the “new normal” in the future, is key to drive behavioural changes
and investments to adaptation and mitigation. Second, the consideration of the social and
human perspectives we analyzed is mostly overlooked. It is often omitted from current
assessments, or at best perceived as a new parameter to include in energy policy.
We believe that adopting similar comprehensive approaches following the GCH
concept holds immense potential for addressing pressing global challenges, such as the
development of sustainable and resilient energy systems, with the same or higher economic
outputs and job opportunities. In the future, we are optimistic that the research and
policymaking will follow such ideas and will start to incorporate elements from these
concepts. By mobilizing diverse, interdisciplinary research teams and leveraging the power
of collaboration and on-ground research work (through the GCH and its national and
regional networks), researchers can foster deeper connections with local communities and
consistently drive meaningful action on different scales and problems.
Beyond just participating in projects, it is crucial that the GCH offers researchers the
opportunity to remain actively involved in implementing their findings even after the
projects are finished, while they can capitalize on their experiences and also apply them in
other similar cases and projects.
We hope this approach becomes increasingly prevalent in the future, as we see it
as a successful and uniquely holistic framework addressing modern challenges. We are
optimistic that the GCH will continue inspiring more committed researchers to embrace
this vision and join us in the pursuit of long-term sustainable solutions.
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 12 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.K., A.A., S.D., C.L. and K.D.; methodology, P.K., A.A.,
S.D., C.L. and K.D.; formal analysis, P.K. and A.A.; investigation, P.K. and A.A.; writing—original
draft preparation, P.K., A.A., S.D., C.L. and K.D.; writing—review and editing, P.K., A.A., S.D., C.L.
and K.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Zhou, S.; Matisoff, D.C.; Kingsley, G.A.; Brown, M.A. Understanding Renewable Energy Policy Adoption and Evolution in Europe:
The Impact of Coercion, Normative Emulation, Competition, and Learning. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 51, 1–11. [CrossRef]
2. Parag, Y. From Energy Security to the Security of Energy Services: Shortcomings of Traditional Supply-Oriented Approaches and
the Contribution of a Socio-Technical and User-Oriented Perspectives. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2014, 27, 97–108. [CrossRef]
3. Terrapon-Pfaff, J.; Fink, T.; Viebahn, P.; Jamea, E.M. Social Impacts of Large-Scale Solar Thermal Power Plants: Assessment Results
for the NOORO I Power Plant in Morocco. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109259. [CrossRef]
4. Ma, Y.; Gopal, S.; Ma, X.; Gallagher, K.; Koch, M.; Kaufman, L. The Deforestation and Biodiversity Risks of Power Plant Projects
in Southeast Asia: A Big Data Spatial Analytical Framework. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14461. [CrossRef]
5. Grodsky, S.M.; Hernandez, R.R. Reduced Ecosystem Services of Desert Plants from Ground-Mounted Solar Energy Development.
Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 1036–1043. [CrossRef]
6. Sovacool, B.K. The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2012, 9, 255–278. [CrossRef]
7. Dai, D.; Alamanos, A.; Cai, W.; Sun, Q.; Ren, L. Assessing Water Sustainability in Northwest China: Analysis of Water Quantity,
Water Quality, Socio-Economic Development and Policy Impacts. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11017. [CrossRef]
8. Alamanos, A. Job–Environment Feedbacks. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 525–526. [CrossRef]
9. UNEP. GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy; UNEP—UN Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017.
10. Chipangamate, N.S.; Nwaila, G.T. Assessment of Challenges and Strategies for Driving Energy Transitions in Emerging Markets:
A Socio-Technological Systems Perspective. Energy Geosci. 2024, 5, 100257. [CrossRef]
11. Koundouri, P.; Alamanos, A.; Plataniotis, A.; Stavridis, C.; Perifanos, K.; Devves, S. Assessing the Sustainability of the European
Green Deal and Its Interlin Kages with the SDGs. npj Clim. Action 2024, 3, 23. [CrossRef]
12. Kamali Saraji, M.; Streimikiene, D. Challenges to the Low Carbon Energy Transition: A Systematic Literature Review and
Research Agenda. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023, 49, 101163. [CrossRef]
13. Kahia, M.; Ben Jebli, M. Industrial Growth, Clean Energy Generation, and Pollution: Evidence from Top Ten Industrial Countries.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 68407–68416. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Simionescu, M.; Strielkowski, W.; Tvaronavičienė, M. Renewable Energy in Final Energy Consumption and Income in the EU-28
Countries. Energies 2020, 13, 2280. [CrossRef]
15. Lund, H.; Thellufsen, J.Z.; Sorknæs, P.; Mathiesen, B.V.; Chang, M.; Madsen, P.T.; Kany, M.S.; Skov, I.R. Smart Energy Denmark.
A Consistent and Detailed Strategy for a Fully Decarbonized Society. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 168, 112777. [CrossRef]
16. Dyrhauge, H. Energy Governance in Denmark. In Handbook of Energy Governance in Europe; Knodt, M., Kemmerzell, J., Eds.;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2022; pp. 593–617. ISBN 978-3-030-43250-8.
17. Bues, A. Social Movements against Wind Power in Canada and Germany: Energy Policy and Contention; Routledge: London, UK, 2020;
ISBN 978-1-00-300670-1.
18. Maltby, T.; Mišík, M. Energy Transitions in Central and Eastern Europe: The Political Economy of Climate and Energy Policy; Cambridge
Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2024;
ISBN 978-1-108-47713-0.
19. Bhushan, C.; Banerjee, S. A Just Energy Transition: Considerations for India’s Coal Sector. In India’s Energy Revolution; Routledge
India: Delhi, India, 2024; ISBN 978-1-00-328181-8.
20. Skjærseth, J.B. Towards a European Green Deal: The Evolution of EU Climate and Energy Policy Mixes. Int. Environ. Agreem.
Politics Law Econ. 2021, 21, 25–41. [CrossRef]
21. Ottenburger, S.S.; Cox, R.; Chowdhury, B.H.; Trybushnyi, D.; Omar, E.A.; Kaloti, S.A.; Ufer, U.; Poganietz, W.-R.; Liu, W.; Deines,
E.; et al. Sustainable Urban Transformations Based on Integrated Microgrid Designs. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 1067–1079. [CrossRef]
22. Alamanos, A.; Linnane, S. Systems Resilience to Floods: A Categorisation of Approaches. In Proceedings of the 24th EGU General
Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022.
23. Sadler, A.; Ranger, N.; Fankhauser, S.; Marotta, F.; O’Callaghan, B. The Impact of COVID-19 Fiscal Spending on Climate Change
Adaptation and Resilience. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 270–281. [CrossRef]
24. Rhodes, E.; Hoyle, A.; McPherson, M.; Craig, K. Understanding Climate Policy Projections: A Scoping Review of Energy-Economy
Models in Canada. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111739. [CrossRef]
25. Alamanos, A. Public Policy to Support Environmental Sustainability and Circular Economy: Efforts towards Integrated
Approaches. In Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on on Circular Economy and Sustainability, Alexandroupolis, Greece,
14–16 July 2021.
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 13 of 16

26. Yang, D.; Liu, D.; Huang, A.; Lin, J.; Xu, L. Critical Transformation Pathways and Socio-Environmental Benefits of Energy
Substitution Using a LEAP Scenario Modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110116. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, G.; Hu, J.; Chen, C.; Xu, L.; Wang, N.; Meng, F.; Giannetti, B.F.; Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Casazza, M. LEAP-WEAP
Analysis of Urban Energy-Water Dynamic Nexus in Beijing (China). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 136, 110369. [CrossRef]
28. Rivera-González, L.; Bolonio, D.; Mazadiego, L.F.; Naranjo-Silva, S.; Escobar-Segovia, K. Long-Term Forecast of Energy and Fuels
Demand Towards a Sustainable Road Transport Sector in Ecuador (2016–2035): A LEAP Model Application. Sustainability 2020,
12, 472. [CrossRef]
29. Cai, L.; Luo, J.; Wang, M.; Guo, J.; Duan, J.; Li, J.; Li, S.; Liu, L.; Ren, D. Pathways for Municipalities to Achieve Carbon Emission
Peak and Carbon Neutrality: A Study Based on the LEAP Model. Energy 2023, 262, 125435. [CrossRef]
30. Kirkerud, J.G.; Nagel, N.O.; Bolkesjø, T.F. The Role of Demand Response in the Future Renewable Northern European Energy
System. Energy 2021, 235, 121336. [CrossRef]
31. Nagel, N.O.; Kirkerud, J.G.; Bolkesjø, T.F. The Economic Competitiveness of Flexibility Options: A Model Study of the European
Energy Transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 350, 131534. [CrossRef]
32. Candas, S.; Muschner, C.; Buchholz, S.; Bramstoft, R.; van Ouwerkerk, J.; Hainsch, K.; Löffler, K.; Günther, S.; Berendes, S.;
Nguyen, S.; et al. Code Exposed: Review of Five Open-Source Frameworks for Modeling Renewable Energy Systems. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112272. [CrossRef]
33. PRIMES model PRIMES—E3 Modelling 2022. Available online: https://e3modelling.com/modelling-tools/primes/ (accessed
on 9 October 2024).
34. European Commission Model PRIMES—Price-Induced Market Equilibrium System|Modelling Inventory and Knowledge
Management System of the European Commission (MIDAS). Available online: https://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/policy-model-
inventory/explore/models/model-primes/ (accessed on 9 September 2024).
35. Turco, E.; Bazzana, D.; Rizzati, M.; Ciola, E.; Vergalli, S. Energy Price Shocks and Stabilization Policies in the MATRIX Model.
Energy Policy 2023, 177, 113567. [CrossRef]
36. Ciola, E.; Turco, E.; Gurgone, A.; Bazzana, D.; Vergalli, S.; Menoncin, F. Enter the MATRIX Model:A Multi-Agent Model for
Transition Risks with Application to Energy Shocks. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 2023, 146, 104589. [CrossRef]
37. EMMA model The European Electricity Market Model 2020. Available online: https://emma-model.com/#:~:text=EMMA%20
is%20a%20techno-economic,large%20set%20of%20technical%20constraints (accessed on 9 October 2024).
38. Heider, A.; Reibsch, R.; Blechinger, P.; Linke, A.; Hug, G. Flexibility Options and Their Representation in Open Energy Modelling
Tools. Energy Strategy Rev. 2021, 38, 100737. [CrossRef]
39. Ozsoy, C.M.; Mengüç, M.P. A Transdisciplinary Approach and Design Thinking Methodology: For Applications to Complex
Problems and Energy Transition. World 2024, 5, 119–135. [CrossRef]
40. Sibilla, M.; Kurul, E. Transdisciplinarity in Energy Retrofit. A Conceptual Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119461. [CrossRef]
41. Heaslip, E.; Fahy, F. Developing Transdisciplinary Approaches to Community Energy Transitions: An Island Case Study. Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 45, 153–163. [CrossRef]
42. Pinkse, J. Green and Greening Jobs. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 510–511. [CrossRef]
43. Lehr, U. Improving Uptake of Evidence on Jobs from Greening. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 514–515. [CrossRef]
44. Gasser, P.; Lustenberger, P.; Cinelli, M.; Kim, W.; Spada, M.; Burgherr, P.; Hirschberg, S.; Stojadinovic, B.; Sun, T.Y. A Review on
Resilience Assessment of Energy Systems. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2021, 6, 273–299. [CrossRef]
45. Perera, A.T.D.; Nik, V.M.; Chen, D.; Scartezzini, J.-L.; Hong, T. Quantifying the Impacts of Climate Change and Extreme Climate
Events on Energy Systems. Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 150–159. [CrossRef]
46. Jasiūnas, J.; Lund, P.D.; Mikkola, J. Energy System Resilience—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111476. [CrossRef]
47. Yazdanie, M. Resilient Energy System Analysis and Planning Using Optimization Models. Energy Clim. Chang. 2023, 4, 100097.
[CrossRef]
48. Javanroodi, K.; Perera, A.T.D.; Hong, T.; Nik, V.M. Designing Climate Resilient Energy Systems in Complex Urban Areas
Considering Urban Morphology: A Technical Review. Adv. Appl. Energy 2023, 12, 100155. [CrossRef]
49. Mikulčić, H.; Baleta, J.; Klemeš, J.J.; Wang, X. Energy Transition and the Role of System Integration of the Energy, Water and
Environmental Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126027. [CrossRef]
50. Özcan, Z.; Willaarts, B.; Klessova, S.; Caucci, S.; Prista, L.; Adamos, G.; Laspidou, C. From Nexus Thinking to Nexus Implementa-
tion in South Europe and beyond: Mutual Learning between Practitioners and Policymakers. SNF 2024, 32, 6. [CrossRef]
51. Angeli, A.; Karkani, E.; Alamanos, A.; Xenarios, S.; Mylopoulos, N. Hydrological, Socioeconomic, Engineering and Water Quality
Modeling Aspects for Evaluating Water Security: Experience from Greek Rural Watersheds. In Proceedings of the EGU General
Assembly; EGU: Vienna, Austria, 2020.
52. Alamanos, A.; Koundouri, P.; Papadaki, L.; Pliakou, T. A System Innovation Approach for Science-Stakeholder Interface: Theory
and Application to Water-Land-Food-Energy Nexus. Front. Water 2022, 3, 744773. [CrossRef]
53. Ioannou, A.E.; Laspidou, C.S. Cross-Mapping Important Interactions between Water-Energy-Food Nexus Indices and the SDGs.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8045. [CrossRef]
54. Alamanos, A.; Linnane, S. Drought Monitoring, Precipitation Statistics, and Water Balance with Freely Available Remote Sensing
Data: Examples, Advances, and Limitations. In Proceedings of the Irish National Hydrology Conference 2021, Athlone, Ireland,
16 November 2021; pp. 1–13.
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 14 of 16

55. Gonzalez, J.M.; Tomlinson, J.E.; Martínez Ceseña, E.A.; Basheer, M.; Obuobie, E.; Padi, P.T.; Addo, S.; Baisie, R.; Etichia, M.;
Hurford, A.; et al. Designing Diversified Renewable Energy Systems to Balance Multisector Performance. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6,
415–427. [CrossRef]
56. Sterl, S.; Vanderkelen, I.; Chawanda, C.J.; Russo, D.; Brecha, R.J.; van Griensven, A.; van Lipzig, N.P.M.; Thiery, W. Smart
Renewable Electricity Portfolios in West Africa. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 710–719. [CrossRef]
57. Hirth, L. The Benefits of Flexibility: The Value of Wind Energy with Hydropower. Appl. Energy 2016, 181, 210–223. [CrossRef]
58. Jesse, B.-J.; Heinrichs, H.U.; Kuckshinrichs, W. Adapting the Theory of Resilience to Energy Systems: A Review and Outlook.
Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 27. [CrossRef]
59. Koundouri, P.; Alamanos, A.; Dellis, K.; Landis, C.; Stratopoulou, A. Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning
and Management. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2024;
ISBN 978-0-19-938941-4.
60. Fuentes-Cortés, L.F.; Ma, Y.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M.; Ruiz-Mercado, G.; Zavala, V.M. Valuation of Water and Emissions in Energy
Systems. Appl. Energy 2018, 210, 518–528. [CrossRef]
61. Casady, C.B.; Cepparulo, A.; Giuriato, L. Public-Private Partnerships for Low-Carbon, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Insights
from the Literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 470, 143338. [CrossRef]
62. Schub, J. Green Banks: Growing Clean Energy Markets by Leveraging Private Investment with Public Financing. JSF 2015, 21,
26–35. [CrossRef]
63. Wolff, P. Mapping the Necessary Policy Instruments to Unlock the Potentials of Private Finance for a Modern Renewable Energy
Sector. In Financing for Low-Carbon Energy Transition: Unlocking the Potential of Private Capital; Anbumozhi, V., Kalirajan, K., Kimura,
F., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 65–81. ISBN 978-981-10-8582-6.
64. Ahmad, T.; Zhang, D. Using the Internet of Things in Smart Energy Systems and Networks. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 68, 102783.
[CrossRef]
65. Chu, W.; Calise, F.; Duić, N.; Østergaard, P.A.; Vicidomini, M.; Wang, Q. Recent Advances in Technology, Strategy and Application
of Sustainable Energy Systems. Energies 2020, 13, 5229. [CrossRef]
66. Dutt, V.; Sharma, S. 9—Artificial Intelligence and Technology in Weather Forecasting and Renewable Energy Systems: Emerging
Techniques and Worldwide Studies. In Artificial Intelligence for Renewable Energy Systems; Dubey, A.K., Narang, S.K., Srivastav,
A.L., Kumar, A., García-Díaz, V., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2022;
pp. 189–207. ISBN 978-0-323-90396-7.
67. Hazrati, M. Social Acceptance for Renewable Energy Technologies: The Role of the Energy Justice Framework. In The Power of
Energy Justice & the Social Contract; Heffron, R.J., de Fontenelle, L., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2024;
pp. 83–91. ISBN 978-3-031-46282-5.
68. Baur, D.; Emmerich, P.; Baumann, M.J.; Weil, M. Assessing the Social Acceptance of Key Technologies for the German Energy
Transition. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2022, 12, 4. [CrossRef]
69. Owens, S.; Driffill, L. How to Change Attitudes and Behaviours in the Context of Energy. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4412–4418.
[CrossRef]
70. Asensio, O.I.; Churkina, O.; Rafter, B.D.; O’Hare, K.E. Housing Policies and Energy Efficiency Spillovers in Low and Moderate
Income Communities. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 590–601. [CrossRef]
71. Johansson, B. Security Aspects of Future Renewable Energy Systems–A Short Overview. Energy 2013, 61, 598–605. [CrossRef]
72. Kester, J. Energy Security and Human Security in a Dutch Gasquake Context: A Case of Localized Performative Politics. Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 24, 12–20. [CrossRef]
73. Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E. Understanding the Human Dimensions of a Sustainable Energy Transition. Front.
Psychol. 2015, 6, 805. [CrossRef]
74. Sovacool, B.K.; Griffiths, S. Culture and Low-Carbon Energy Transitions. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 685–693. [CrossRef]
75. Rao, N.D.; Wilson, C. Advancing Energy and Well-Being Research. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 98–103. [CrossRef]
76. Goggins, G.; Rau, H.; Moran, P.; Fahy, F.; Goggins, J. The Role of Culture in Advancing Sustainable Energy Policy and Practice.
Energy Policy 2022, 167, 113055. [CrossRef]
77. Koundouri, P.; Dellis, K. Human Security: Concepts and Measurement. Cadmus 2023, 5, 28.
78. Zhang, S.; Chen, W.; Zhang, Q.; Krey, V.; Byers, E.; Rafaj, P.; Nguyen, B.; Awais, M.; Riahi, K. Targeting Net-Zero Emissions While
Advancing Other Sustainable Development Goals in China. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 1107–1119. [CrossRef]
79. Mazzone, A.; De Cian, E.; Falchetta, G.; Jani, A.; Mistry, M.; Khosla, R. Understanding Systemic Cooling Poverty. Nat. Sustain.
2023, 6, 1533–1541. [CrossRef]
80. Owen, J.R.; Kemp, D.; Lechner, A.M.; Harris, J.; Zhang, R.; Lèbre, É. Energy Transition Minerals and Their Intersection with
Land-Connected Peoples. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 203–211. [CrossRef]
81. Proskuryakova, L. Updating Energy Security and Environmental Policy: Energy Security Theories Revisited. J. Environ. Manag.
2018, 223, 203–214. [CrossRef]
82. Ghofrani, A.; Zaidan, E.; Jafari, M. Reshaping Energy Policy Based on Social and Human Dimensions: An Analysis of Human-
Building Interactions among Societies in Transition in GCC Countries. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 246. [CrossRef]
83. Alamanos, A. The Global Climate Hub. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 375–376. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 15 of 16

84. Koundouri, P.; Alamanos, A.; Sachs, J.D. Innovating for Sustainability: The Global Climate Hub; DEOS Working Papers 2403; Athens
University of Economics and Business: Athens, Greece, 2024.
85. SDSN Home—Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Available online: https://www.unsdsn.org (accessed on 9
September 2024).
86. Koundouri, P.; Alamanos, A.; Sachs, J.D. A Global Climate Hub to Bridge Science and Society. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSD), Online, 19 July 2024.
87. Elnagar, E.; Gendebien, S.; Georges, E.; Berardi, U.; Doutreloup, S.; Lemort, V. Framework to Assess Climate Change Impact on
Heating and Cooling Energy Demands in Building Stock: A Case Study of Belgium in 2050 and 2100. Energy Build. 2023, 298,
113547. [CrossRef]
88. Suo, C.; Li, Y.P.; Mei, H.; Lv, J.; Sun, J.; Nie, S. Towards Sustainability for China’s Energy System through Developing an
Energy-Climate-Water Nexus Model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110394. [CrossRef]
89. Gündüz, N.; Küfeoğlu, S.; Lehtonen, M. Impacts of Natural Disasters on Swedish Electric Power Policy: A Case Study. Sustainabil-
ity 2017, 9, 230. [CrossRef]
90. Alamanos, A.; Linnane, S. Estimating SDG Indicators in Data-Scarce Areas: The Transition to the Use of New Technologies and
Multidisciplinary Studies. Earth 2021, 2, 635–652. [CrossRef]
91. Alamanos, A. Exploring the Impact of Future Land Uses on Flood Risks and Ecosystem Services, With Limited Data: Coupling a
Cellular Automata Markov (CAM) Model, With Hydraulic and Spatial Valuation Models. Qeios 2024. [CrossRef]
92. Pathways to Sustainable Land-Use and Food Systems. Available online: https://resources.unsdsn.org/pathways-to-sustainable-
land-use-and-food-systems (accessed on 31 January 2024).
93. Alamanos, A. Sustainable Water Resources Management under Water-Scarce and Limited-Data Conditions. Cent. Asian J. Water
Res. 2021, 7, 1–19. [CrossRef]
94. Wiese, F.; Bramstoft, R.; Koduvere, H.; Pizarro Alonso, A.; Balyk, O.; Kirkerud, J.G.; Tveten, Å.G.; Bolkesjø, T.F.; Münster, M.;
Ravn, H. Balmorel Open Source Energy System Model. Energy Strategy Rev. 2018, 20, 26–34. [CrossRef]
95. Kountouris, I.; Bramstoft, R.; Madsen, T.; Gea-Bermúdez, J.; Münster, M.; Keles, D. A Unified European Hydrogen Infrastructure
Planning to Support the Rapid Scale-up of Hydrogen Production. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 5517. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96. Alamanos, A.; Nisiforou, O.; Garcia, J.A.; Papadaki, L.; Koundouri, P. Integrated Fleet Optimization under Techno-Economic
Shipping and Environmental Constraints: The MaritimeGCH Model. 2024. Available online: https://github.com/Alamanos11/
MaritimeGCH (accessed on 4 October 2024). [CrossRef]
97. Koundouri, P.; Ker Rault, P.; Pergamalis, V.; Skianis, V.; Souliotis, I. Development of an Integrated Methodology for the Sustainable
Environmental and Socio-Economic Management of River Ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 540, 90–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98. Koundouri, P.; Halkos, G.; Landis, C.F.M.; Alamanos, A. Ecosystem Services Valuation for Supporting Sustainable Life below
Water. Sustain. Earth Rev. 2023, 6, 19. [CrossRef]
99. Raviv, O.; Palatnik, R.R.; Castellini, M.; Gusperti, C.; Vergalli, S.; Sirota, J.; Shechter, M. Synergies of CGE and IAM Modelling for
Climate Change Implications on WEFE Nexus in the Mediterranean. Clim. Risk Manag. 2024, 44, 100608. [CrossRef]
100. Martínez-Martínez, Y.; Dewulf, J.; Aguayo, M.; Casas-Ledón, Y. Sustainable Wind Energy Planning through Ecosystem Service
Impact Valuation and Exergy: A Study Case in South-Central Chile. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 178, 113252. [CrossRef]
101. Dunn, J.B.; Greene, K.; Vasquez-Arroyo, E.; Awais, M.; Gomez-Sanabria, A.; Kyle, P.; Palatnik, R.R.; Schaeffer, R.; Zhou, P.;
Aissaoui, B.; et al. Toward Enhancing Wastewater Treatment with Resource Recovery in Integrated Assessment and Computable
General Equilibrium Models. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2024, 11, 654–663. [CrossRef]
102. Boaz, D.; Palatnik, R.R.; Ayalon, O. Not All about the Money: The Role of Financial Information in Promoting Residential Rooftop
Photovoltaics. Energies 2024, 17, 2043. [CrossRef]
103. Stangl, J.; Borsos, A.; Diem, C.; Reisch, T.; Thurner, S. Firm-Level Supply Chains to Minimize Unemployment and Economic
Losses in Rapid Decarbonization Scenarios. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 581–589. [CrossRef]
104. Hekkert, M. Jobs Lost and Found in Sustainability Transitions. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 512–513. [CrossRef]
105. Living Lab Modeler: Living Lab Modeler: A Tool to Leverage the Activities and Impact of Your Living Lab. Available online:
https://32520579.isolation.zscaler.com/profile/f1651b6c-5a7a-4e25-a61a-66f8cd23da60/zia-session/?controls_id=b63914ff-a3
85-4710-ab57-2e743bc25db7&region=fra&tenant=2c2f6c39ed9e&user=834d4a7bae43b4509739f9c9805308b06228807b6d93e050
6f308945488948d5&original_url=https://www.livinglabmodeler.eu/llm/#/llm/&key=sh-1&hmac=5247a42f125181ae504ddf7
9eb3c1c3ff409139e60b4b67565f9da90bd30c1bb (accessed on 9 September 2024).
106. MIRO Stakeholder Analysis Template for Teams|Miro. Available online: https://miro.com/templates/stakeholder-analysis/
(accessed on 9 September 2024).
107. Alamanos, A.; Koundouri, P.; Papadaki, L.; Pliakou, T.; Toli, E. Water for Tomorrow: A Living Lab on the Creation of the
Science-Policy-Stakeholder Interface. Water 2022, 14, 2879. [CrossRef]
108. Guittard, A.; Kastanidi, E.; Akinsete, E.; Berg, H.; Carter, C.; Maneas, G.; Martínez-López, J.; Martínez-Fernandez, J.; Papadatos,
D.; de Vente, J.; et al. Using Multi-Actor Labs as a Tool to Drive Sustainability Transitions in Coastal-Rural Territories: Application
in Three European Regions. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2024, 33, 57–63. [CrossRef]
109. Stergiopoulou, L.; Akinsete, E.; El-Said, N.; Koundouri, P. Developing Policy Recommendations to Support Innovation in Soilless
Agriculture within the Nile River Basin: A Participatory Approach Using Multi-Actor Working Groups. In Proceedings of the
EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 April 2023; p. EGU-15642. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 5184 16 of 16

110. Datta, A.; Coates, S.; Rossiter, A.; Krishnamoorti, R. Reskilling and Upskilling for Decarbonization: Analyzing Micro-Credential
Programs for Energy Workforce Development. J. Contin. High. Educ. 2024, 1–20. [CrossRef]
111. De Rosa, M.; Glumac, O.; Bianco, V.; Pallonetto, F. A Micro-Credential Approach for Life-Long Learning in the Urban Renewable
Energy Sector. Renew. Energy 2024, 228, 120660. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.