From Capabilities to Scenarios: A Mixed‑Methods Approach to Socially Responsive Energy Systems

The Paris Agreement identifies renewable energy technologies (RETs) as essential to avoiding catastrophic climate change. Since 2010, the global electricity mix has evolved rapidly, with renewables as the fastest‑growing source. However, ambitious renewable targets can produce significant social impacts at the local level. To understand these impacts holistically, we need to examine their implications for human development and how well‑being concerns shape local acceptance of RETs.

Norway has some of the best wind resources in Europe, but wind development has been contested: licensing has been revoked following opposition from nature‑conservation groups, recreational users, Sámi reindeer herders, and local communities. This paper operationalises the Capability Approach to integrate well‑being and other socio‑technical considerations into energy‑systems modelling (ESM). It explores the challenges and trade‑offs involved in evaluating well‑being outcomes from RETs, with a particular focus on capturing the voices of people who live near wind infrastructure and using their conceptions of well‑being to define system boundaries, identify priorities and amelioration options, and inform scenario design.

We apply this approach to two Norwegian municipalities: one in Finnmark on Sámi reindeer‑herding land, and one in Østfold near Oslo. Building on capability‑identification methods (Alkire 2002, 2013; Clark 2003; Ibrahim 2008; Uyan‑Semerci 2007), we visualise relationships between well‑being and energy projects and embed those relationships into ESM scenarios.

Our mixed‑methods co‑creation process involved Sámi, Norwegian, and other scholars and consisted of semi‑structured interviews and focus groups (59 participants, July–August 2024) and four participatory workshops (34 participants, October–November 2025) to validate and extend findings. From these engagements, we developed six decarbonisation scenarios that reflect human development and social‑justice priorities: four scenarios directly associated with well‑being dimensions (nature protection; contribution to local industry; protection of traditional economic activities; and Friluftsliv — outdoor life) and two indirectly (reduced energy consumption and technology preferences).

Findings highlight the importance of inclusive energy planning that addresses information asymmetries, acknowledges historical land uses, and creates pathways for restorative justice, local employment, and nature protection. This paper contributes to theory and practice by demonstrating how locally defined capabilities can be operationalised within ESM to better integrate social priorities and justice considerations. We argue that this methodology can help to configure future renewable projects so they prioritise both sustainability and the well‑being of affected communities.