D.1.1 - Systematic literature review of the studies at the nexus of gender equality and sustainable energy systems and ontology of energy systems
Creators: name: De Nicola, Antonio
name: D'Agostino, Gregorio
name: Fresilli, Benedetto
name: Peri, Vittoria Maria
name: Patriarca, Tatiana
name: Leonardi, Nunzia
name: Luzi, Daniela
name: Mirenda, Cloe
name: Pecoraro, Fabrizio
name: PISACANE, LUCIO
name: Marchesini, Nicolò
name: Tagliacozzo, Serena
name: Cellini, Marco
name: Crescimbene, Cristiana
name: Sekuła, Paulina
name: wagner, aleksandra
name: Warat, Marta
name: Striebing, Clemens
name: Loos, Sabine
name: Diaz-Chavez, Rocio
name: Evans, Yara
Publisher: name: gEneSys Project
Year: 2023
Subjects: Gender equality
Gender-energy nexus
Systematic literature review
Energy Systems
Ontology of energy systems

description: The gEneSys’ project deliverable 1.1. (D1.1 thereafter) entitled “Systematic literature review of studies at the nexus of gender equality and sustainable energy systems and ontology of energy systems” brings together the work performed by Task 1.1 (Systematic literature review to design analytical framework for review of EU and national energy transition-related policy frameworks) and Task 1.2. (Defining the mission, agendas, and identifying the change actors in the evolution to sustainable energy systems) in the first eight months since the project’s onset. This makes D1.1 deliverable particularly long and rich in insights. Indeed, the afore-mentioned tasks had the overarching goal of setting the groundwork for the tasks and deliverables coming later in the project’s lifecycle. However, it is worth noting that the two tasks focused on different aspects and dimensions.

The ontology task was intended to deliver a comprehensive picture of objects and relationships in the energy transition domain and try to delimitate the area of action of the gEneSys project in transforming gendered power relations in energy transition pathways. In other words, the ontology probes what are the key concepts emerging in the extant literature on energy transition and how these concepts are interrelated. The ontology can also unveil missing or overlooked concepts that can be brought to the forefront in future research. Another scope of the ontology is also the establishment of a “common language” for the project, with a set of terms and related definitions. Although not focusing specifically on the gender dimensions, the energy transition ontology can be considered as a guidance to navigate the energy transition knowledge domain. However, it should not be assumed as an immutable output; rather it can be expanded and enriched with new analyses or conceptualizations.

On the other hand, the literature review task has looked specifically into the state of knowledge at the nexus between gender and energy transition, by examining how this nexus has been disentangled in scientific publications as well as in the grey literature. As shown in the sections below, scientific publications were sifted through using a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology (Mengist et al. 2020) which allows answers to formulated research questions by defining search strings and identifying specific eligibility and quality assessment criteria for inclusion/exclusion of search results. SLRs can be accompanied by meta-analyses that generate qualitative and quantitative data on the topic under examination. This results in a mix of qualitative and quantitative findings that deliver a more complete overview. The preliminary analysis of the available knowledge on the nexus between gender and energy transition made evident the relevance of grey literature (e.g., reports by international organizations such as IRENA) that have often tackled this topic from a specific perspective. For this reason, the Task’s team has deemed it critical to expand the task to include an analysis of these resources. Taken together, the SLR and the grey literature review shed light on (i) how the nexus between gender and energy transition is framed (e.g., which subsystems are more frequently represented when addressing the interplay between the two dimensions?); (ii) what are the findings of the current analyses; (iii) what are the recommendations put forward in terms of future researchor policies to be implemented, and (iv) what are the research gaps that still need to be investigated or anyway need more research to be assessed?