7. Conclusion: The Essence of Community Energy in Germany

Basically, local politics is closely linked to civil society, civic engagement and participation of the population (cf. Haus 2002). An active civil society is seen as a prerequisite for a Big Democracy (Trott zu Solz 1999) or Thick Democracy (Barber 1984). Archon Fung assumes a reinvention or rediscovery of local democracy and increased participation (local turn, cf. Fung 2006, combined with a public turn, cf. Mathieu 2005; Farmer 2013). What is striking about these approaches is the fact that the focus is always on the small political level, a local unit or specific sub-areas of state and society, and that here, beyond large framework conditions, it is supposed to form the breeding ground for democracy and the modern welfare state. Cellular democracy, for example, emphasizes a bottom-up structure based on small neighborhood districts that are supposed to solve their problems and assert claims independently (Foldvary 2002). Very close to these ideas is the grassroots approach, which originates above all in the ecological thinking milieu: motivated by environmental destruction, ecological problems and fragmented, meaningless modern societies, local communities are supposed to “grow from below”, in that, starting with individual initiative and ending with group formation, forms of collective action are to be balanced out again and again according to the situation (Kaufman and Dilla Alfonso 1997). This way of thinking is again strongly reminiscent of principles of decentralized state building and social action in decentralized units: Known under the terms of subsidiarity (prioritizing the smallest level), devolution (transferring power to smaller units), localism and communalism (cf. critical comments on the democracy-promoting nature of the principle of devolution in Leach 2004). One could therefore also speak of small-scale democracy (Oliver et al. 2012). The authors’ use of the metaphor of a “hidden” Leviathan (state) is again reminiscent of Stealth Democracy (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002) and citizen engagement in the neighborhood.

Beyond theoretical approaches in the sense of social designs, problems and social issues are discussed and resolved in small units (such as municipalities), which has recently been discussed under the term local governance (Schwalb and Walk 2007; Kersting et al. 2009), also regional governance (Giessen 2010; Böschen et al. 2014) or urban governance (cf. on urban governance and participation Schmidt 2014), thus taking up the governance perspective that has been increasingly discussed in Germany since the 2000s. This describes state action, albeit linked through exchange with civil society associations and business enterprises, which is no longer organized top-down (hierarchies), but is intended to enable horizontal strategies primarily through negotiation processes or market solutions in actor exchange (Benz and Dose 2010; Benz et al. 2012). Obviously, principles such as participation (Papadopoulos 2004; Walk 2008; Braun et al. 2007; Diebäcker 2008), cooperation (Papadopoulos 2003) and creativity (Schwalb 2011) are of great importance in collaborative work and intended joint decision-making. As a result, soft skills in the sense of mediation, joint discourse and coordination processes as opposed to purely executive action are increasingly taking center stage; in addition, there is also an increasing importance of (specialist) knowledge and specific competences as prerequisites for access to discourses (cf. Box 1997; Innerarity 2013). Meanwhile, Benjamin Barber (2013) also emphasizes the importance of cities in the 21st century; he speaks of a strengthening of urban communities against the background of increasing denationalization, which seems obvious with regard to the innovative and creative power of cities (cf. Kersting 2017). From a political science perspective, however, there remains a certain contradiction between the poles of size unit and democratic ideal, according to Robert Dahl this is the crucial question of size unit, the Politics of Scale (Dahl and Tufte 1973; Dahl 1984; Moss and Newig 2010), a gap between the valorization of the city and marginalized rural areas remains.

Cf. Also the debate about “critical citizens” as an effect of post-democratic-technocratic government, which leads to a critical attitude – between frustration and anger, activity and protest – and thus to a “danger or resource for democracy” Geißel (2011a), Norris (2011), Friedrichs and Lange (2012), Zürn (2013), besides Offe (2006) and MacDonald (2012).

Cf. Kocka 1993; McCloskey 2006, 2011; Kocka 2012; Tenfelde 2012; Nida-Rümelin 2013; Moretti 2014; Pállinger 2014; Kocka and Merkel 2015; Poguntke 2015.

See Plasser and Ulram 1993; Meyer 2003; Reis et al. 2005; Saward 2006; van Deth 2007; van Deth et al. 2007; Scherb 2008; Weißeno 2010a; Hanh 2012; Thorson 2012; van der Heijden 2014.

Cf. Münkler 1994, 2000, 2001; Forndran 2003; Lohmann 2003; Pinzani 2003; Münkler and Loll 2005; Leggewie and Sachße 2008; Greffrath 2010.

The topic of citizens and technology in a wide variety of ascribed roles between design and protest can be found in the literature, for example, in Thomas Saretzki, who spoke of a “technological citizenship”, “democratic compatibility of technology” and the “rediscovery of the citizen” (Saretzki 2001). In the context of energy cooperatives, Flieger (2010) described “energetic citizens”; with regard to engagement in climate protection, von Braunmühl (2011) addressed the ideal of equal citizenship Very specifically elaborated descriptions, considerations and characteristics can be found in Devine-Wright (2007), who explicitly described socio-psychological aspects of “energy citizenship”, as well as Seyfang (2005, 2006), who related this specifically to the field of sustainable consumption (“Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption”). In the field of community energy research, Walker and Cass (2007) also dealt with citizen roles in connection with engagement in community energy initiatives, as did Flynn et al. (2008) in the exemplary case of hydropower use.

The idea for the law was taken from Denmark, where financial support for associations of local turbine operators and interest groups, compensation payments to property owners for loss of value, and the obligation of operators to offer 20% of the shares to citizens within a 4.5 km radius of the turbine have been legally prescribed since 2009 (Bovet and Lienhoop 2015: 229). Experiences with this are viewed quite critically, according to which opponents of wind turbines are becoming stronger and organizing themselves more professionally; in the case of a few wind energy projects, only very few shares could be sold because local residents strongly opposed the project; compensation payments vary from region to region and provoke lawsuits; it is difficult to understand why compensation cannot also be paid for losses in value caused by other disruptive infrastructures (e.g. landfills) It is difficult for landowners to understand that the amount of compensation depends primarily on the value of the land and not on the intensity of the impact of the wind turbine (ibid.: 229). In addition, there are “wind energy nomads” who acquire land near the turbine simply to be able to buy shares (ibid.). Studies with focus groups would also question the assumption of increased acceptance, especially with regard to the purchase of shares (ibid.: 233). In Denmark, very few residents acquired shares when the project was already rejected in advance (ibid.). From this, the authors conclude, “It becomes clear that the option of economic participation alone does not lead to increased acceptance, but that there is a great need to have a say” (ibid.). They also argue that an increased right to information in the case of economic participation is not a particular advantage because it does not cover the whole planning process and it does not constitute a right to have a say (ibid.). Therefore, regulations are proposed to improve the whole planning process by working towards early public participation and using participatory processes such as planning cells at an early stage (ibid.). Other acceptance enhancing aspects introduced by interviewees relate to the way of operation, in that the promotion of regional operators is desired due to the lack of trust in external investors (ibid). The possibilities of regional use of regionally generated electricity are also viewed positively (ibid.).

In survey results as well as interview statements, the motivation characteristics “return on investment”, “social-ethical”, “ecological” and “energy self-sufficiency” were found. For the principle of local community, three characteristics were identified: “regional location”, “community organization” and “local community”. These characteristics fully merge into the motivational characteristics and types described below. Results of the qualitative and quantitative survey could therefore be interlinked and condensed more strongly and thus ultimately made more valid.

In participation research, various references are made to the considerable influence of the local context: “What a number of the cases in this book show is that in such contexts, the introduction of new political practices, new spaces for the articulation of concerns and interests, and new opportunities for political apprenticeship can begin a process of change that may have broader ripple effects. They point to shifts that have begun to reconfigure democratic engagement” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 22).

In the literature, a similar distinction is made between global motives (climate protection, ecology) and local motives (individual contribution, support of the region, local benefits, use of local resources) (Rogers et al. 2008: 4222). In addition, social motives (support for the local community, role model character, education), ecological/environmental motives (environmental protection for future generations, resource savings) and economic drivers (regional value creation, financial advantages for the local population, creation of local employment, benefits) are cited, which are also understood here as overriding ideal motives.

Cf. Tthe typology of Volz (2011a, 2012a), presented on p. 195.

See similar results in Bauwens 2014b, 2016; Leuphana University Lüneburg and Nestle 2014; Kreß et al. 2014b; Rubik et al. 2014.

See also similar results in Bauwens 2014b, 2016; Leuphana University Lüneburg and Nestle 2014; Kreß et al. 2014b; Rubik et al. 2014. Cf. Characterization of the participation modes of community energy in Walker and Devine-Wright 2008; Walker et al. 2011; Holstenkamp and Degenhart 2013; Kreß et al. 2014a, 2014b; Rubik et al. 2014; Rubik and Kreß 2014. – See further for analogy to forms of participation in the field of sustainable consumption Stolle et al. 2004, 2005; Klintman 2009; Micheletti and McFarland 2011; Baringhorst 2012b, 2012c; Micheletti et al. 2012; Stolle and Micheletti 2013; Yang and Baringhorst 2014; Weller 2014; Rückert-John and Schäfer 2015; Baringhorst 2016a, 2016b.

Research network “Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy”.

This corresponds to the findings of the Volunteer Survey, according to which the “sociable-oriented” group, which was still very strong in 1999, regressed to become the weakest group alongside the “common good-oriented” and “interest-oriented” groups (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 124). According to this, common good-oriented and interest-oriented issues have received a big boost in their importance in the context of civic engagement, which would include the phenomenon of community energy (keywords climate protection and communitarian-pragmatic problem solving) itself: “The big surprise of the decade, however, is that this particularly benefited the group of the common good-oriented. The group that places a particularly strong emphasis on the “we” and a lesser emphasis on the “I” in its commitment is thus the winner of the subjective changes of the first decade of the Volunteer Survey” (ibid.) (cf. also Gensicke and Geiss 2015).

Cf. Results of a survey in Heidelberg by Kreß et al. (2014b: 11 f.): “The results of the questionnaire survey show that the citizens of Heidelberg think it is important “that our society does something to ensure that industrialized countries save energy” (92%) and most (86%) say they are aware of several concrete ways to save energy in everyday life. The vast majority say they “always” save energy, which is reflected in activities such as switching off lights (63%), turning down the heating (72%) or consciously ventilating (61%) (…). Half of the respondents would also forego comfort in order to save energy, and only a few (above all older people, people with a low level of education or low income) feel that saving energy is costly (12%). Children should also be taught the importance of saving energy, according to 90% of respondents. Nevertheless, some respondents agree with the statement that they have little time in their daily lives to think about saving energy (18%). However, the majority of 54% disagree with this statement – of which older people and respondents with a higher level of education tend to be more likely. (…) The main motives for saving energy are ecological considerations such as “protecting the environment” (89%) and “contributing to climate protection” (87%) as well as the economic motive “saving money” (84%). 46% state that they are generally thrifty and can therefore imagine saving energy. Whether friends or acquaintances save energy plays a role for only 8% of the respondents”. Similar results emerged from the same survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 12): “Reduction of energy consumption and conscious energy consumption are based on so-called motivational alliances of financial savings and ecological considerations. However, in the district of Steinfurt, there is also a very clear attitude that the quality of life should not suffer from saving energy, according to the principle ‘You can also save yourself dead.´ Almost all of the role-playing citizens, however, see economic efficiency or financial advantages as a consequence of conscious energy consumption as the main motive; accordingly, the (foreseeable) lack of economic efficiency is the factor limiting their own commitment. If the savings efforts or expenditures for energy-efficient electrical and electronic devices were no longer economically worthwhile, this would be too great a sacrifice to continue to drive forward the energy transition”.

Cf. results of Kreß et al. (2014b: 12): “A reduction of energy consumption and a conscious energy consumption are also based among the ‘role-active’ on so-called motive alliances of financial savings, ecological considerations and savings-related value orientations according to the principle of the “famous Swabian housewife”. But socio-political efforts towards sufficiency can also be found: ‘I simply want to consume little energy as a human being’. The active citizens still place the aspect of conscious consumption in the foreground. This combines motives such as responsibility for the environment, intra- and intergenerational justice, living in accordance with convictions or taking on a role model function. The committed citizens are aware that a powerful movement can develop from many activities of individuals, but that a critical mass is necessary for this and its absence can also lead to frustration (…). As important framework conditions and barriers to action, (…) financial resources (especially with regard to the purchase of energy-efficient household appliances), infrastructural framework conditions (e.g. technical equipment and type of construction of the house), but also social factors, such as the behavior of other household members (with regard to energy consumption behavior), were named. The interviewed citizens also mention ‘good opportunities’ as an encouraging factor, for example when defective appliances are replaced by more energy-efficient ones or when switching to green electricity in the context of a move. It is also clear from the suggestions for improvements in the framework conditions on the part of those involved that financing, as opposed to ‘more time’, is a significant part of the willingness to save energy: Various forms of cost reductions for the consumer, e.g. cheaper local and long-distance public transport or cheaper energy-saving light bulbs, are mentioned here first and foremost”.

See Kim and Choi 2005; Kim 2011; Tan and Lau 2011; Butler et al. 2014; Hildebrand et al. 2014; Stern 2014; Moser et al. 2015; Dumitru et al. 2016; Galvin and Terry 2016; Hansen 2016; Ruepert et al. 2016; Nachreiner and Matthies 2016; Sunikka-Blank and Galvin 2016.

This also takes up a consideration by Jürgen Habermas, in that a distinction is made between communicative and strategic action, the latter gaining more and more importance in modernity according to his thesis (cf. Habermas 2011a, 2011b). He refers to the penetration of economic ways of thinking and acting/principles in all areas of life as colonization of the lifeworld (Habermas 2011b: 470 ff.). The results of the present study indicate that originally indexed communicative action is indeed subject to strategic action, which is here attributed to a lack of fit (congruence) with other contextual spheres of society. In this way of thinking, the economized society forces resisting sections into its patterns of thought and action in the long run.

Cornwall and Coelho describe schools for democracy as follows: “Participatory sphere institutions can become ‘schools for citizenship’- in the words of a Brazilian activist cited by Cornwall – in which those who participate learn new meanings and practices of citizenship by working together. The sheer diversity of actors and positions within this sphere offer opportunities for developing an ‘expanded understanding’ (…) that allows people to see beyond their own immediate problems or professional biases. As Rodgers, Barnes and Cornwall observe, participants in these spaces bring commitment to them and talk of getting an enormous amount of personal fulfilment out of their engagement. Interactions in this sphere can help change dispositions amongst bureaucrats as well as citizens, instilling greater respect, and enhancing their propensity to listen and commitment to respond” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 23). Baringhorst speaks in particular of the transmission of values of a substantial nature (liberty, equality, fraternity) and procedural values in the form of recognition and tolerance of dissenters, as well as the formation of an autonomous moral power of judgement and the formation of social and political trust (Baringhorst 2012a: 68 f.). On civic learning processes, see in particular Biesta (2014).

In addition to these more explicit ideas of the functions of democracy, there are also expansively conceived theories of democracy: The idea of inclusive democracy (Fotopoulos 1997), for example, pursues the inclusion and democratization of all areas of life (following ideas and approaches in economic terms from Karl Marx, as well as ecological ideas), this includes the private sphere as well as the economy in particular, and thus the workplace, as well as all social activities and forms of socialization. Consequently, these representatives based themselves on democratic ideas and procedures in the economy (industrial economic democracy, employee democracy, workplace democracy) and “democratic” forms of enterprise and ownership such as common ownership (cf. Ostrom 1990 approach) and “democratized” associations and non-profit organizations of civil society (organizational democracy) such as cooperatives, but also public/governmental institutions, political parties, trade unions and associations (cf. Pateman 1975; Weber 1999; Stohl and Cheney 2001; Cloke and Goldsmith 2002; Harrison and Freeman 2004; Moldaschl 2004; Smith 2009; Bode 2013). On the one hand, civic action is conceived here from intrinsic motives and sources – not republican or socialist top-down through the bestowal of civil rights or entitlements etc. but through the action and drive of the individual themself – i.e. bottom-up, legitimated by individual autonomous action. On the other hand, the idea consists in the firmly anchored institutional creation of democratic structures in organizations and institutions on the one hand, through rights of co-determination, and on the other hand, through the creation of additional bodies (such as advisory councils), working groups and representatives in committees. This “democratic design” is intended to stimulate and thus also make use of channels for co-creation and co-determination in companies, enterprises, public institutions, etc. – In a similar thrust, representatives of the concept of democratization (Vilmar 1973) and democracy education ultimately include everything in the democratic: The aim of democratization is to implement democratic practices and procedures in all spheres of society (economy, state, civil society, private sphere, etc.). But also a reinforcement of direct democratic elements of the representative form of government is discussed (democratization of democracy: Offe 2003a; cf. besides Schmalz-Bruns 1995; Decker 2012; Ante 2015; Öhlinger and Poier 2015; Solar 2016). According to the ideas of democracy education, from an individual perspective, a person who thinks and acts democratically must consequently do so in all areas of life (according to the democracy education or theory of John Dewey, cf. Dewey 1916; besides Bohnsack 2003; Ichilov 2009; Beutel and Fauser 2001, 2011, 2013; Nowak et al. 2013; Boyte 2015; Hill 2015). From this, a democracy of everyday life could ultimately be derived (Peterson 1990; Bentley 2005; Ginsborg 2005; Urquhart 2005; Chisholm et al. 2012; van Deth 2013a; de Moor 2016; Peterson 2009 and Banks et al. 2013 speak of everyday ethics, Marres 2012 of everyday publics). The difference between the schools of thought becomes recognizable: The pragmatic theory of democracy and democracy pedagogy thinks of democratization starting from the individual, in the sense of an influence through the sum of individual actions (bottom-up approach), the supporters of institutional democratization call for a democratization of the institutions, orders and processes already created (top-down approach).

Jean-Jaques Rosseau formulated the ideal of an active citizen (“citoyen”) in contrast to a more passive citizen (“bourgeois”), whereby active citizens are involved in public affairs, engaged in the local or national public community oriented to the common good, politically interested and educated, and thus form the foundation of a vivid democracy. Contrary to this role of citizens in society, publicly passive, but at the same time wealthy and prosperous citizens are primarily interested in their own benefit, are selfishly active only in their private sphere and oriented to economic materialism and hedonism, not interested in politics and critical of government action. Rousseau was convinced, that active citizens can only be a result of conscious education and democracy will only work through this kind of social capital made by active citizens.

Cf. on the input problem Blühdorn (2013: 228): “On the input side, direct and representative participation transform into scientific objectivity, expert rule with maximum exploitation of forms of minimal participation. Deliberation and collective reasoning turn into strictly formalized, depoliticized procedures with criteria of transparency, information obligation and accountability. Finally, a subject-related effectiveness and efficiency is contrasted with a system-related variant with the help of service provider image and customer and service orientation.” – It is thus assumed that civil society organizations only represent a “simulation of public legitimacy” (von Braunmühl 2011: 122), Petra Dobner similarly speaks of “legitimacy phishing” (Dobner 2008). Nolte (2011) describes a fundamental problem of legitimacy through particularism “in the guise of a supposedly irrefutable common good”. On this problem, cf. Nullmeier (2002: 15), Schuppert (1997: 142 ff.) and Renn (2013b: 71) with regard to the participation of the population in the field of technology.

See also Gabriel 1983: 98 f.; Scharpf 1999, 2005; Kraus 2004; Schäfer 2006a, 2006b.

For example, a study by the Federal Environment Agency (Alcántara et al. 2014) elaborates various dimensions of criteria for participatory processes. These include: Procedural rationality (important criteria: Input from the general public, fairness, openness to results, discussion atmosphere, deliberative quality, procedural reflection), power (roles in the process/structural preconditions) (important criteria: Resources for the process, decision-making power, initiation, sanctions), inclusion (selection of participants, selectivity of participation, dismantling of access barriers, representation of different groups and interests), empowerment (for hard-to-reach groups in the process and beyond the process) as well as transparency (inclusion of the public, context, transparency about goals, explication of the participants’ understanding of their roles, feedback of results). The point of inclusion in particular appears to be highly relevant from the perspective of democratic theory in private-sector civil society undertakings such as community energy projects.

Michael Zürn, for example, emphasizes “zones of deliberation” beyond decision-making rules and majorities, in that arguments are not made in public space in a way that is determined by interests, i.e. deliberation is carried out in compliance with the rules of procedural qualities (fairness, equality, proximity, impartiality, reflexivity, etc.), which is supposed to have a legitimizing effect (Zürn 1998: 240 f., Zürn 2005, cf. as a further representative of the deliberative idea Pettit 2008a, 2008b; for discussion Rosanvallon 2010; Geis et al. 2012; Ritzi 2014).

Cf. results of a survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 17): “The interviews showed that the role-players volunteer in political debates and processes for idealistic reasons; they draw their motivation from their own interest in climate change and their own curiosity about renewables. For those who have successfully implemented actions, realized concerns and activated fellow campaigners, these successes have a self-reinforcing motivating and stimulating effect. In particular, they explicitly perceive time competition with other activities as a limiting factor for political engagement. In some cases, the lack of support from individual municipalities and municipal politicians (local councillors, mayors) delayed or prevented the establishment of new renewable energy community plants”.

Cf. results of a survey in Heidelberg by Kreß et al. (2014b: 17): “Across all three roles there are social effects as well as interactions, mutual influences between the roles. The social environment of citizens can have a great influence across all fields of action. Talking to acquaintances can convince friends and neighbors of the importance of the energy issue. (…) Especially when it comes to purchasing green electricity, the social network has a great influence. Investments in renewable energies can also be encouraged by friends or neighbors. By the mere visibility of their behavior, they influence the behavior of others and thus have a pioneering role (…). Citizens thus become aware of the possibility of political engagement through their environment”. – Similar results emerged from the same survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 17): “The results of the questionnaire survey show: The social environment of citizens can have a great influence across all fields of action. (…) Energy-related behavior can also be influenced on a non-verbal level: With regard to energy consumption, the behaviors of other household members can have both an encouraging effect, e.g. by supporting energy reduction, and an inhibiting effect, e.g. when parents see difficulties in energy reduction by their children (…). Investments in renewable energies can be encouraged by friends or neighbors. They thus have pioneering roles, which influence behavior in the social environment through mere visibility”.

Cf. results of a survey in Heidelberg by Kreß et al. (2014b: 17): “These previous examples describe ‘interpersonal’ influences, i.e. influences between citizens themselves. However, there are also ‘intrapersonal’ (psychological) interactions between the different roles. On the one hand, the interaction of the different roles is perceived by the active citizens as mutually supportive. For example, some of the active citizens were initially only active in one role such as a political actor or exclusively as an investor. Later, these ‘initial impulses’ led to further activities in other areas. Being active in one role thus has an effect on behavior and becoming active in other thematic fields or on future activities. On the other hand, the activities in the different roles can also slow down or hinder each other: For example, it is a question of the personal time budget and the available financial means in which roles one becomes active. And there are other psychological effects that make engagement in one area an ‘argument’ against other activities. So-called ‘licensing effects’ can be seen, for example, in an increase in energy consumption legitimized by green electricity purchases”. Similar results were found in the same survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 17).

Cf. results of a survey in Heidelberg by Kreß et al. (2014b: 17): “From the interviews and the focus group it emerges: The active citizens see many commonalities in the roles and through the different ways participation opportunities are also perceived for different social groups, each with different backgrounds and resources (…)”. – Similar results emerged from the same survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 17 f.): “Overall, the participants in the interviews and the focus group see many similarities in the roles and the idea of making a difference together encourages engaged citizens to remain active (…). Intrapsychically, too, the roles can usually be combined well; at best, it is a question of personal time budget and available financial means in which roles one becomes active. In addition to these positive interactions, negative interactions were also discussed. Possible licensing effects can be seen, for example, in an increase in energy consumption legitimized by the purchase of green electricity (…)”.

Cf. Rubik and Kreß (2014: 7 f.): “From a psychological viewpoint, the different roles seem to harmonize with each other. Existing time and financial resources might determine the degree of involvement. With the aid of projective methods (i.e. using symbols), participants in the focus group used particular items to show positive and negative entanglement of roles. Positive effects were described as spillover effects, insofar as one behavior impacted positively on another. However, participants mostly described negative effects such as classical rebound effects or licensing effects. Licensing effects occur for example, if people who produce their own energy show higher levels of consumption. Having solar panels on the rooftop does not legitimize underfloor heating, as one participant ironically noted. Others reaffirm that view, saying that acting sustainably does not free somebody to cause ecological damage in another context instead (in other words, that you use green energy, but still take a plane to your next holiday destination)”.

This result is also confirmed by the UNESCO Sustainability Barometer, according to which younger people (15–24 years) see hardly any opportunities to get involved in the energy transition. According to this, the most important fields of action that have already been tapped into are reducing energy consumption and replacing old appliances with energy-saving new ones; behind these are purchasing green electricity, familiarizing myself with the topic, getting politically involved in the energy transition, getting involved in regional energy projects (e.g. solar energy plants, wind power…) and using a hybrid car (cf. Michelsen et al. 2016: 173).

Cf. in the field of renewable energies prosuming networking approaches such as the “buzzn” initiative, where private electricity producers and consumers are virtually connected. Although such possibilities exist in principle in the context of community energy, they are not used in the present study apart from the local heating examples. Suggestions from participants in the survey indicate that there is a high level of interest, but there are obviously hurdles in the concrete area of application. Overall, the potential for such intelligent networking in the area of generation and consumption (“smart grids”) seems to be great, but the current actual dissemination of these forms of participation and networking in Germany seems to be only slightly developed (cf. Hellmann 2018).

Such undemocratic tendencies are considered an eternal dilemma in participation research: “An ever-present dilemma is how to insulate these spaces from capture by non-democratic elements, including administrations who simply use them for therapeutic or rubber-stamping purposes” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 24). – In a study on cooperative participation structures, the problem of (grassroots) democratic vs. oligarchic structures and processes at the level of members and management of a cooperative could be clearly demonstrated (cf. von Blanckenburg 2014).

Philip Pettit also takes up Carole Pateman’s approach and discusses old questions against the background of new insights and social developments. He comes to the conclusion that at the core it is always a question of changing from an ego-based way of thinking and acting in group discourse to an overarching, we-based perspective (Pettit 2008a: 202): “Participatory democracy requires people to cooperate, not just in the pursuit of common goals, but in the pursuit of common goals according to common judgements. And that sort of enterprise is more or less inevitably going to require members to adopt the group point of view and to be prepared, at least in certain contexts, to prioritize their group identity. Participatory democracy is not just a way in which individuals combine to satisfy their existing goals, according to their existing judgements; it is a way in which they combine to determine the goals and judgements that they will enact together”.

Cornwall and Coelho also point to incremental, i.e. rather inconspicuous, processes of change: “The normative expectations of deliberative and participatory democracy find weak support in the findings of the studies of everyday experiences of participatory governance in this book. But despite considerable shortcomings, the cases presented here give some cause for optimism. Their very ordinariness tells other stories: of incremental change, of a growing sense of entitlement to participate, of slow but real shifts in political agency. They reveal glimpses of how opening up previously inaccessible decision-making processes to public engagement can stimulate the creation” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 21).

In terms of theory and methodology, Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice and approaches based on it could provide a link for research (Bourdieu 1979, 2014; Ebrecht and Hillebrandt 2004; Schäfer 2013b, 2016; Hillebrandt 2014; Schäfer et al. 2014). Max Weber spoke of a “reality science” here, and for years a “practice turn” has been emphasized (Soler 2014), but apart from the orientation towards empirical analyses, no separate approach or school for theory and method development has emerged from this.

A link to Max Weber and forms of social action can also be found here. Habermas’ theory of communicative action (Habermas 2011a, 2011b) may lack this substantive factual aspect, which would have to be examined more closely in the future, to what extent social capital, participation as a basic social principle and collaboration are also dependent on this, what significance is attached to it and how strong the influences and meanings of this are.

For example, in a survey of energy cooperatives in Germany, the members of the cooperatives surveyed stated that energy education and awareness-raising were the most important new fields of activity for energy cooperatives (55%), followed by energy contracting (52%), energy consulting (43%) and energy refurbishment of buildings (Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 11). To this end, 67% of members would be willing to increase their investments (ibid.).

Jeremy Rifkin, for example, is thinking of a “Zero Marginal Cost Society” in which the internet of things and the collaborative use of the commons herald the end of the era of capitalism (Rifkin 2014).

More recent figures support the assessment that “a continuously decreasing social anchoring of the party system can be observed” (Niedermayer 2014a: 417; cf. also Niedermayer 2014b).

See at http://​www.​communityenergys​cotland.​org.​uk

In the literature on the Energiewende, a distinction is made in the context of stakeholder and public participation between six different philosophical concepts (functionalist, neoliberal, deliberative, anthropological, emancipatory, postmodern), which are concretely translated with regard to the objective and approach of participation processes (Renn and Schweizer 2009: 180; Schweizer 2015: 28). However, it seems questionable whether these sometimes extremely complex and not self-contained systems of thought and theory can be broken down in this way.

For example, for the UK: Seyfang et al. 2012, 2013; for Australia: Hicks and Ison 2011; Mey et al. 2016; Mey and Hicks 2015; for the USA: Hoffman and High-Pippert 2005, 2010; for Canada: Girvitz and Lipp 2005; see also overviews in Hielscher 2011 and Holstenkamp and Radtke 2018.

Cf. on the various financing models, organizational structures and systematizations: Enzensberger et al. 2003; Yildiz 2014; Holstenkamp 2015.

Cf. Selle et al. 1996; Fritsche 2011; Mayer et al. 2011; Drilling and Schnur 2012; Bott et al. 2013; Selle 2013; Blandow et al. 2014; Klages 2014; Wilde 2014.

Regarding the issues/aspects of the expansion of renewable energies: Who benefits? Who is adversely affected? Who supports or promotes? Who prevents or blocks?

Cf. on approaches to socio-ecological research in the field of energy and sustainability Holmberg 1995; Azar et al. 1996; Balzer and Wächter 2002; Jahn 2003; Young et al. 2006; Luks and Siebenhüner 2007; Fischedick et al. 2014.