The Netherlands aims to transition to a gas-free built environment by 2050, with meaningful public engagement considered central to success. We investigated how local government stakeholders – the primary facilitators of the transition – perceive the role of citizens and energy citizenship in achieving this transition at household level. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with officials from nine municipalities. Our data show mixed perceptions as to citizen interest and financial willingness and/or capacity to adopt gas-free alternatives. The cost of alternatives and practicalities of citizen engagement are considered the main barriers to the gas-free transition. Two alternatives are considered most appropriate in the municipalities that participated in our study: a collective heat network and an all-electric approach. We find that these alternatives do not offer equal opportunities to foster energy citizenship. A collective heat network, while socially inclusive, represents a passive form of citizen engagement due to its central and distant nature, though this can be mitigated by developing local heat cooperatives. In contrast, all-electric installations are more socially exclusive (due to high investment costs), but implementation requires active citizen engagement. Combining these two options could represent a viable option for a gas-free transition that represents a form of sustainable development.

荷兰的目标是到2050年过渡到无气建筑环境，有意义的公众参与被认为是成功的关键。我们调查了地方政府利益相关者（过渡的主要推动者）如何看待公民和能源公民在家庭层面实现这一过渡的作用。对来自九个城市的官员进行了半结构化访谈。我们的数据显示出人们对公民的兴趣，财务意愿和/或采用无气替代品的能力的看法不一。替代方案的成本和公民参与的实用性被认为是无气过渡的主要障碍。在参与我们的研究的城市中，两种选择被认为是最合适的：集体热网和全电方法。我们发现，这些替代方案并没有提供促进能源公民化的平等机会。集体供热网络虽然具有社会包容性，但由于其中心和遥远的性质，它代表了公民参与的一种被动形式，尽管这可以通过发展地方供热合作社来缓解。相比之下，全电气装置更具社会排他性（由于高昂的投资成本），但实施需要公民积极参与。将这两种选择结合起来，可以代表一种无气过渡的可行选择，它代表了一种可持续发展的形式。尽管可以通过发展当地的热合作社来缓解这种情况。相比之下，全电气装置更具社会排他性（由于高昂的投资成本），但实施需要公民积极参与。将这两种选择结合起来，可以代表一种无气过渡的可行选择，它代表了一种可持续发展的形式。尽管可以通过发展当地的热合作社来缓解这种情况。相比之下，全电气装置更具社会排他性（由于高昂的投资成本），但实施需要公民积极参与。将这两种选择结合起来，可以代表一种无气过渡的可行选择，它代表了一种可持续发展的形式。