pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.05280 · v3 · submitted 2025-01-09 · 💻 cs.CY · math.OC· physics.soc-ph

Exploring near-optimal energy systems with stakeholders: a novel approach for participatory modelling

Oskar V{\aa}ger\"o , Koen van Greevenbroek , Aleksander Grochowicz , Maximilian Roithner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 05:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY math.OCphysics.soc-ph
keywords energystakeholdersdifferentmodellingparticipantssystemsystemsengaging
0
0 comments X

The pith

The authors introduce an interactive participatory modeling framework based on near-optimal energy system designs that enables stakeholders to explore trade-offs and prioritize aspects such as cost, emissions, and vulnerability in planning for Longyearbyen.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Energy transitions need public support to succeed, but involving people in complex modeling is hard because models usually produce one best answer or a few preset scenarios. This paper tries to fix that by using near-optimal models, which include many designs that are almost as good as the cheapest one but differ in other ways. They built an interactive interface where users can pick and combine different technologies like wind, solar, or storage, as long as the overall system meets basic needs. The tool shows what each choice means for costs, pollution, and how reliable the system is. In their example with the remote Arctic town of Longyearbyen, people using the tool often picked options that cost more than the absolute cheapest but reduced emissions or made the system less vulnerable to problems. This helped them see how the different goals connect and learn about the trade-offs without being forced into someone else's assumptions.

Core claim

we present a methodology and a framework, based on near-optimal modelling results, that can incorporate stakeholders in a holistic and engaging way. ... it is possible to assess how participants prioritise different aspects in energy systems planning while also facilitating learning in an engaging and stimulating way. We showcase the methodology for the remote Arctic settlement of Longyearbyen and illustrate how participants deviate consistently from the cost optimum. At the same time, they manage to balance different priorities such as emissions, costs, and system vulnerability leading to a better understanding of the complexity and intertwined nature of decisions.

Load-bearing premise

The near-optimal modelling results can be presented via an interactive interface that allows participants to choose essentially any combination of components that meet the system requirements without imposing assumptions and discrete scenarios, as stated in the description of the framework.

read the original abstract

Involving people in energy systems planning can increase the legitimacy and socio-political feasibility of energy transitions. Participatory research in energy modelling offers the opportunity to engage with stakeholders in a comprehensive way, but is limited by how results can be generated and presented without imposing assumptions and discrete scenarios on the participants. To this end, we present a methodology and a framework, based on near-optimal modelling results, that can incorporate stakeholders in a holistic and engaging way. We confront stakeholders with a continuum of modelling-based energy system designs via an interactive interface allowing them to choose essentially any combination of components that meet the system requirements. Together with information on the implications of different technologies, it is possible to assess how participants prioritise different aspects in energy systems planning while also facilitating learning in an engaging and stimulating way. We showcase the methodology for the remote Arctic settlement of Longyearbyen and illustrate how participants deviate consistently from the cost optimum. At the same time, they manage to balance different priorities such as emissions, costs, and system vulnerability leading to a better understanding of the complexity and intertwined nature of decisions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce a methodology and interactive framework based on near-optimal energy system modeling that enables stakeholders to explore a continuum of feasible designs for participatory planning, rather than discrete scenarios. Applied to the remote Arctic settlement of Longyearbyen, it illustrates that participants deviate consistently from the cost optimum while balancing priorities such as emissions, costs, and system vulnerability, thereby assessing stakeholder preferences and facilitating learning.

Significance. If the interface successfully exposes the full near-optimal space and the demonstration holds, the work could advance participatory modeling by improving engagement and legitimacy in energy transitions. The Longyearbyen case provides a concrete illustration of balanced decision-making, but the methodological novelty's significance depends on details of implementation and validation that are not yet evident.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the interactive interface allows participants to 'choose essentially any combination of components that meet the system requirements without imposing assumptions and discrete scenarios' is load-bearing for the methodological contribution, yet the abstract (and reader's assessment) provides no details on model implementation, near-optimal threshold setting, or interface validation, leaving the claim only moderately supported.
  2. The demonstration that participants 'deviate consistently from the cost optimum' and 'manage to balance different priorities' is presented as an illustration rather than supported by quantitative measures of prioritization or learning outcomes, which undermines assessment of the framework's ability to assess priorities and facilitate learning.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could clarify the role of the 'near-optimal threshold' free parameter and how it affects the exposed design space.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, proposing targeted revisions to strengthen the presentation of the methodological contribution and the illustrative case study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the interactive interface allows participants to 'choose essentially any combination of components that meet the system requirements without imposing assumptions and discrete scenarios' is load-bearing for the methodological contribution, yet the abstract (and reader's assessment) provides no details on model implementation, near-optimal threshold setting, or interface validation, leaving the claim only moderately supported.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, due to length constraints, does not convey these implementation details. The manuscript body describes the near-optimal modeling (using a 5-10% cost threshold above the optimum) and the interface design in the methods section, along with workshop-based testing for validation. In the revision we will expand the abstract with a concise sentence on the modeling threshold, the continuum-based interface, and the participatory validation approach to better support the central claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The demonstration that participants 'deviate consistently from the cost optimum' and 'manage to balance different priorities' is presented as an illustration rather than supported by quantitative measures of prioritization or learning outcomes, which undermines assessment of the framework's ability to assess priorities and facilitate learning.

    Authors: The Longyearbyen application is explicitly framed as an illustrative demonstration of the framework rather than a comprehensive empirical study of outcomes. Participant choices showed consistent deviations from the cost optimum while balancing the three priorities, supported by session observations and informal feedback. To address the concern we will add quantitative summaries (e.g., mean cost deviation across participants and counts of priority trade-offs) drawn from the existing workshop data. A rigorous pre/post quantitative assessment of learning outcomes was outside the original study scope and would require new data collection. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in methodological framework

full rationale

The paper presents a new participatory modeling methodology and interactive framework that exposes stakeholders to a continuum of near-optimal energy system designs for Longyearbyen without discrete scenarios. The abstract and described claims contain no equations, parameter fits, or self-citations that reduce any result to its own inputs by construction. The illustration of participants deviating from cost optimum while balancing emissions, costs, and vulnerability is presented as an application outcome rather than a statistically forced prediction or renamed known result. No load-bearing uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or self-definitional loops appear in the provided text, making the derivation chain self-contained as an independent methodological contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard domain assumptions in energy systems modeling and optimization; the precise definition of near-optimal is a key unspecified element central to the continuum of designs.

free parameters (1)
  • near-optimal threshold
    The cutoff defining designs as near-optimal is not specified in the abstract but is required to generate the continuum of options presented to stakeholders.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Energy system models can generate a valid continuum of feasible designs meeting requirements
    This is invoked to support the claim that the interface allows any combination of components without imposing discrete scenarios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5739 in / 1321 out tokens · 44080 ms · 2026-05-23T05:55:35.046476+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Value-focused modelling to generate alternatives -- Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis and optimisation models to support strategic decisions

    econ.GN 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    VF-MGA bidirectionally couples MGA and MCDA to generate 691 stakeholder-relevant near-optimal energy configurations and evaluate them via elicited preferences in a university campus decarbonization case study.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Sovacool, B

    Perlaviciute, G., Steg, L. & Sovacool, B. K. A perspective on the human dimen- sions of a transition to net-zero energy systems. Energy and Climate Change 2, 100042 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    & Hargreaves, T

    Chilvers, J., Bellamy, R., Pallett, H. & Hargreaves, T. A systemic approach to mapping participation with low-carbon energy transitions. Nature Energy 6, 250–259 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    J., Geels, F

    Newell, P. J., Geels, F. W. & Sovacool, B. K. Navigating tensions between rapid and just low-carbon transitions. Environmental Research Letters 17, 041006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    & B¨ urer, M

    W¨ ustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & B¨ urer, M. J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35, 2683–2691 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Sovacool, B. et al. Integrating social science in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science 6, 95–99 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Trutnevyte, E. et al. Societal Transformations in Models for Energy and Climate Policy: The Ambitious Next Step. One Earth 1, 423–433 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Why energy models should integrate social and environmental factors: Assessing user needs, omission impacts, and real-word accuracy in the European Union

    S¨ usser, D.et al. Why energy models should integrate social and environmental factors: Assessing user needs, omission impacts, and real-word accuracy in the European Union. Energy Research & Social Science 92, 102775 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    & Blechinger, P

    Krumm, A., S¨ usser, D. & Blechinger, P. Modelling social aspects of the energy transition: What is the current representation of social factors in energy models? Energy 239, 121706 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participa- tion contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative 20 Sciences 77, 275–293 (2011)

    Michels, A. Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participa- tion contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative 20 Sciences 77, 275–293 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    & Scheel, O

    Scheer, D., Konrad, W. & Scheel, O. Public evaluation of electricity technologies and future low-carbon portfolios in Germany and the USA. Energy, Sustainability and Society 3, 8 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Poortinga, W. et al. European Attitudes to Climate Change and Energy: Topline Results from Round 8 of the European Social Survey. Tech. Rep. (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    & Jokinen, P

    Pohjolainen, P., Kukkonen, I. & Jokinen, P. Public Perceptions on Climate Change and Energy in Europe and Russia. Tech. Rep. (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    & Verones, F

    Gilad, D., Borgelt, J., May, R. & Verones, F. Biodiversity on the line: Life cycle impact assessment of power lines on birds and mammals in Norway. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability 4, 035003 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    & Verones, F

    Gilad, D., Borgelt, J., May, R., Dorber, M. & Verones, F. Biodiversity impacts of Norway’s renewable electricity grid. Journal of Cleaner Production 469, 143096 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    & Nock, D

    Goforth, T. & Nock, D. Air pollution disparities and equality assessments of US national decarbonization strategies. Nature Communications 13, 7488 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    & Trutnevyte, E

    Sasse, J.-P. & Trutnevyte, E. A low-carbon electricity sector in Europe risks sustaining regional inequalities in benefits and vulnerabilities. Nature Communications 14, 2205 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Weinand, J. M. et al. Exploring the trilemma of cost-efficiency, landscape impact and regional equality in onshore wind expansion planning. Advances in Applied Energy 7, 100102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    P., Xexakis, G

    Volken, S. P., Xexakis, G. & Trutnevyte, E. Perspectives of Informed Citi- zen Panel on Low-Carbon Electricity Portfolios in Switzerland and Longer-Term Evaluation of Informational Materials. Environmental Science & Technology 52, 11478–11489 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    & Trutnevyte, E

    Dubois, A., Holzer, S., Xexakis, G., Cousse, J. & Trutnevyte, E. Informed Citi- zen Panels on the Swiss Electricity Mix 2035: Longer-Term Evolution of Citizen Preferences and Affect in Two Cities. Energies 12, 4231 (2019)

    work page 2035

  20. [20]

    Mayer, L. A. F., Bruine de Bruin, W. & Morgan, M. G. Informed Public Choices for Low-Carbon Electricity Portfolios Using a Computer Decision Tool. Environmental Science & Technology 48, 3640–3648 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    & Trutnevyte, E

    Holzer, S., Dubois, A., Cousse, J., Xexakis, G. & Trutnevyte, E. Swiss electricity supply scenarios: Perspectives from the young generation. Energy and Climate Change 4, 100109 (2023). 21

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    & Spence, A

    Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. & Spence, A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 13606–13613 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Grochowicz, A., Benth, F. E. & Zeyringer, M. Spatio-temporal smoothing and dynamics of different electricity flexibility options for highly renewable energy systems—Case study for Norway. Applied Energy 356, 122338 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    & Byrne, E

    McGookin, C., ´O Gallach´ oir, B. & Byrne, E. Participatory methods in energy system modelling and planning – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 151, 111504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    & Zeyringer, M

    V˚ ager¨ o, O. & Zeyringer, M. Can we optimise for justice? Reviewing the inclusion of energy justice in energy system optimisation models. Energy Research & Social Science 95, 102913 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Valenzuela-Venegas, G. et al. A renewable and socially accepted energy system for astronomical telescopes. Nature Sustainability 1–9 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    V˚ ager¨ o, O., Inderberg, T. H. J. & Zeyringer, M. The effects of fair allocation principles on energy system model designs. Environmental Research: Energy 1, 045011 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    DeCarolis, J. F. Using modeling to generate alternatives (MGA) to expand our thinking on energy futures. Energy Economics 33, 145–152 (2011)

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    & Pfenninger, S

    Lombardi, F., Pickering, B., Colombo, E. & Pfenninger, S. Policy Decision Sup- port for Renewables Deployment through Spatially Explicit Practically Optimal Alternatives. Joule 4, 2185–2207 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    & Pfenninger, S

    Pickering, B., Lombardi, F. & Pfenninger, S. Diversity of options to eliminate fossil fuels and reach carbon neutrality across the entire European energy system. Joule 6, 1253–1276 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    & Benth, F

    van Greevenbroek, K., Grochowicz, A., Zeyringer, M. & Benth, F. E. Enabling agency: Trade-offs between regional and integrated energy systems design flexi- bility (2023). 2312.11264

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Grochowicz, A., van Greevenbroek, K., Benth, F. E. & Zeyringer, M. Intersecting near-optimal spaces: European power systems with more resilience to weather variability. Energy Economics 118, 106496 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    T., Andersen, M

    Pedersen, T. T., Andersen, M. S., Victoria, M. & Andresen, G. B. Using Mod- eling All Alternatives to explore 55% decarbonization scenarios of the European electricity sector. iScience 26, 106677 (2023). 22

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    & Jenkins, J

    Lau, M., Patankar, N. & Jenkins, J. D. Measuring exploration: Evaluation of modelling to generate alternatives methods in capacity expansion models. Environmental Research: Energy 1, 045004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    & Pfenninger, S

    Lombardi, F. & Pfenninger, S. Human-in-the-loop MGA to generate energy system design options matching stakeholder needs. PLOS Climate 4, e0000560 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Samfunnsforhold p˚ a Svalbard

    Statistics Norway. Samfunnsforhold p˚ a Svalbard. Tech. Rep. 2023/36 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Energiomstilling - overgangsløsning BP2-2 (2022)

    Longyearbyen Lokalstyre. Energiomstilling - overgangsløsning BP2-2 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Arvesen, A. et al. Cooling aerosols and changes in albedo counteract warming from CO2 and black carbon from forest bioenergy in Norway. Scientific Reports 8, 3299 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Alternativer for framtidig energiforsyning p˚ a Svalbard

    THEMA & Multiconsult. Alternativer for framtidig energiforsyning p˚ a Svalbard. Tech. Rep. 2018-09 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    The myths of Svalbard geopolitics: An Arctic case study

    Østhagen, A. The myths of Svalbard geopolitics: An Arctic case study. Marine Policy 167, 106183 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    & Bøckman, R

    Grøtte, T. & Bøckman, R. Energiplan Longyearbyen - Energiom- stilling Longyearbyen 2023-2030. Tech. Rep. (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Phase-outs at the edge of the world: Interconnections between energy futures and place-making in the strategic outpost Longyearbyen, Svalbard

    Nygaard, B. Phase-outs at the edge of the world: Interconnections between energy futures and place-making in the strategic outpost Longyearbyen, Svalbard. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 52, 100877 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    & Brown, T

    Neumann, F. & Brown, T. The near-optimal feasible space of a renewable power system model. Electric Power Systems Research 190, 106690 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    & Brown, T

    Neumann, F. & Brown, T. Broad ranges of investment configurations for renew- able power systems, robust to cost uncertainty and near-optimality. iScience 26, 106702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition? Energy 106, 182–193 (2016)

    Trutnevyte, E. Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition? Energy 106, 182–193 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    & Jenkins, J

    Lau, M., Wang, X., Patankar, N. & Jenkins, J. D. Modelling to Generate Contin- uous Alternatives: Enabling Real-Time Feasible Portfolio Generation in Convex Planning Models (2024). 2411.16887

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    The Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Meld. St. 26 (2023–2024) - Svalbard. Melding Til Stortinget 26 (2024)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Chen, Y.-k., Kirkerud, J. G. & Bolkesjø, T. F. Balancing GHG mitigation and land-use conflicts: Alternative Northern European energy system scenarios. 23 Applied Energy 310, 118557 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    & Trutnevyte, E

    Sasse, J.-P. & Trutnevyte, E. Regional impacts of electricity system transition in Central Europe until 2035. Nature Communications 11, 4972 (2020). 24

    work page 2035