Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Climate Change

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-and-climate-change

Towards a just transition: Identifying EU regions at a socioeconomic risk of

the low-carbon transition
Zoi Vrontisi , Ioannis Charalampidis , Konstantinos Fragkiadakis , Alkistis Florou
E3-Modelling S.A. Athens, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Europe has committed to turning climate neutral by 2050 while wider stakeholders acknowledge the need for a
Just transition just low carbon transition that will alleviate any negative socio-economic impacts and leave no one behind. A key
Fossil fuel phase-out first step to this direction is to identify the regions at risk. We develop a dedicated socio-economic risk indicator
Socioeconomic risk
which makes it possible to identify the EU regions likely to be affected the most from the transition. The indicator
Low carbon transition
rests on the latest definition of the IPCC, which treats risk as the combination of Hazard, Exposure and Vulner­
ability. In our risk index, Hazard is described as the drop in production of fossil fuel-related sectors due to the
transition risk, Exposure is the respective employment share, while Vulnerability is a composite index of so­
cioeconomic sub-indicators that further describe Sensitivity and Adaptive Capacity of the regions. We find a wide
divergence across the risk profiles of EU regions. 6 % of all EU regions are found to be at high risk, while 74 % of
the regions face no risk. The 15 high-risk regions are also found to experience socioeconomic challenges prior to
the low-carbon transition process, thus indicating the need for dedicated supporting policy mechanisms.

Introduction
The ever-worsening climate crisis unfolding worldwide is forcing
societies to transition away from fossil fuels and devise pathways to a
climate-neutral future. To be successful, the low-carbon transition will
need to materialise at unprecedented speed and scale across all eco­
nomic sectors and regions [1,2]. Evidently, the transition to climate
neutrality will force societies to transform. Notwithstanding the
numerous societal benefits, structural change will be marked by short- to
medium-term rising energy costs, reconfiguration of labour markets and
disruption of the socioeconomic fabric of communities that have
developed around coal, oil, and gas extraction and processing.
The year 2019 marked a fundamental strategic reorientation of EU
policy, notably with the introduction of the European Green Deal (EGD)
which is set to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050
and to transform the European economy to become more ecologically
and environmentally sustainable. This ambition was not only expressed
in the European Climate Law [3], enshrining a strong commitment to
ecological transformation, but also by including far-reaching measures
in the EGD [4] in various areas: a) investments in environmentally
friendly technologies, b) support for innovation, c) environmentally
friendly public and private transport, d) decarbonisation of the energy
sector and f) energy-efficient buildings. Investments in
eco-transformation are coordinated and facilitated through the Euro­
pean Green Deal Investment Plan.
Although the GHG emissions in the EU were decreasing in the last
decade, there is a substantial variation in the progress both, at the na­
tional and regional level [5]. This implies that for certain EU regions
whose economies are highly energy and carbon intensive, there is a long
way ahead to reach climate neutrality and to reduce the reliance on
fossil fuels. Additionally, the impacts of green transition will differ
greatly across the EU countries but also within the country [6],
depending on a number of drivers, notably on the sectoral diversifica­
tion and the type of prevailing economic sectors. The economic and
social effects will differ, depending on their general economic energy
and carbon intensity as well as their pattern of sectoral specialization.
According to the impact assessment [7] of the EU Communication
“Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition” [8], the output in sectors
like fossil fuel production as well as energy-intensive manufacturing
sectors is likely to shrink. These developments will also have conse­
quences on the labour market, as jobs in the most affected industries are
likely to decline. Though new, “green” industries and jobs will be
created simultaneously, there is no guarantee that this will occur in
exactly the regions that faced and output and employment loss due to
the green transition. Thus, the economic effects of the green transition
on the EU regions might be asymmetric with some regions benefitting in
terms of higher economic growth, while other suffering from a drop in
output paired with negative social consequences.
For this reason, a just transition to a low carbon economy, one that
alleviates the negative socio-economic impacts of decarbonisation by
leaving no one behind, is of utmost importance [9].The elements of a
just transition and the challenges met by fossil-fuel dependent

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2024.100129

Available online 1 March 2024

2666-2787/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Vrontisi et al.
economies have been recently discussed under the Working Group III of
the IPCC in the Sixth Assessment report [10]. Across Europe,
carbon-intensive regions are undergoing major restructuring as a result
of the energy transition, facing acute, complex, and largely site-specific
challenges [11]. The aim of this work is to identify which
carbon-intensive communities in Europe might be at risk of socioeco­
nomic disruptions considering also to what extent they can respond to
the potential adverse consequences of the energy transition. In the
article below we conduct a brief and targeted literature review and
present the research background of our analysis. We then describe in
detail the methodology developed to build the Socioeconomic Risk
Index, and the proceed with the presentation of results that identify the
regions at risk. We then showcase existing challenges that the regions at
risk already face and finalize the analysis with our concluding remarks.
Literature review
We adopt the risk framework developed in climate risk science to
assess socioeconomic risks that emerge from the transition. The analysis
builds on the literature of regional and climate vulnerability assessment
(e.g., [12–15]), but goes beyond the widely applied AR4 [16] vulnera­
bility concept to consider the latest relevant IPCC methodology as pre­
sented in the SREX [17] Special Report on Managing the Risks of
Extreme events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation,
then in AR5 [18]) and most recently in AR6 [19]. By following the new
IPCC paradigm [20], we do not only assess the vulnerability of the re­
gions, but also consider exposure and hazard as suggested by Ishtiaque
et al. [21]. These concepts, while developed for the assessment of
physical climate risk, are here adapted to the transition risk evaluation.
Vulnerability is a concept whose definition varies across disciplines.
Climate science perceives it as the likelihood and magnitude of adverse
effects caused by extreme climate or other weather-related events [22],
which can be defined as climate hazards. The definition of vulnerability,
and the emerging use of risk terminology, has been evolving throughout
the years, as documented in the IPCC reports. In the Working Group II
Summary Results of Assessment Report 5 and 6 of the IPCC, vulnera­
bility is defined as “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely
affected,” which “encompasses a variety of concepts and elements
including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to
cope and adapt”. Exposure is defined as “the nature and degree to which
a system is exposed to climate change”, sensitivity as “the degree to
which a system is adversely affected by climate change” and adaptive
capacity as “the capability of a production system or region to better
adjust to climate change” (IPCC, AR4/WGII, 2007).
Τhe socioeconomic vulnerability and risk assessments that relate to
energy and climate policy shock, can employ the methodology that has
been developed in physical sciences and most notably in the IPCC
framework (e.g., in [23] and [24]). In these cases, the components of
vulnerability, exposure and hazard are adapted to the social context as
social science puts a spotlight on the social and economic conditions that
shape one’s ability to cope with shocks and stresses [25] focusing on
structural factors like poverty and inequality that make communities
vulnerable to damage from external hazards.
Carley et al. [23] adapt the Vulnerability Scoping Diagram devel­
oped by Polsky et al. [26] into a social science setting and use it to
explore vulnerability as a function of where and when specific energy
policies have exposed different communities to adverse effects (expo­
sure), the susceptibility of these communities (sensitivity) and ability to
mitigate and cope with these effects (adaptive capacity). This approach
resembles a standard ‘risk-hazard framework’ informing about a com­
munity’s “current and future hazards, potential losses and adaptive ca­
pacities” [23]. To measure exposure, the authors look at the changes in
electricity prices caused by specific energy policies, while to assess
sensitivity they examine how populations with different characteristics
are affected by these changes. The indicators used include age, race,
poverty, income spent on energy services, and education. For adaptive
2
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
capacity the authors study how national energy assistance programs
perform in terms of shielding most vulnerable households against elec­
tricity price spikes.
Raimi [27] examines territories that are heavily dependent on fossil
energy as an economic driver and looks at 12 measures each of which
informs about vulnerability. Measures include population, energy ac­
tivity, energy activity per capita needed for revealing the concentration
of the energy activity for a given community, environmental risk factors,
and education rates. Snyder [24] proposes an index of energy transition
vulnerability that combines fossil fuel employment data with socioeco­
nomic measures. For Snyder employment in a hydrocarbon-related
occupation, poverty, (lack of) education and geographic isolation are
factors that exacerbate vulnerability to decarbonisation. In a study
published in 2018 [28], the Joint Research Centre uses GDP, unem­
ployment rate and share of jobs at risk within the economically active
population as indicators to determine the magnitude of the economic
and social impacts emerging from the retirement of coal-fired electricity
generation facilities in regions across the EU. Most recently, McDowall
et al. [29] developed a vulnerability indicator to assess declining
employment in four carbon-intensive sectors, considering one single
component for defining each sub-component of vulnerability, namely
job losses as an exposure indicator, unemployment as an indicator for
sensitivity and innovation potential as an indicator for the adaptive
capacity of the region. Another assessment that focuses on identifying
vulnerable EU regions to low carbon transition has been recently pub­
lished by OECD [30], however the focus of this report is the
high-emitting manufacturing sectors, not considering fossil fuel extrac­
tion or power supply, while the methodological approach considers
employment shares and per capita emissions to identify the vulnerable
EU regions.
Ibarraran et al. [31] identify that the vulnerability of an incumbent
community depends on its resilience capacity, namely its capacity to
deal with, respond and adapt to exogenous shocks and disruptions. In
our work, resilience and adaptive capacity are used interchangeably.
Stanickova & Melecky [32] define resilience as the “ability to deal with
external factors and reduce vulnerability, and one of its main tasks is to
minimize losses and as a result to ensure the economic recovery in the
shortest term”. A definition that resonates with our analysis comes from
Martin (2012) who sees the resilience of a regional economy as the
ability to “reconfigure, i.e., adapt, its structure (firms, industries, tech­
nologies and institutions) so as to maintain an acceptable growth path in
output, employment and wealth over time”.
Finally, as an example of relevant policy application, Annex D of the
2020 European Semester Country Reports [33] outlines the territorial
eligibility criteria for the Just Transition Fund (JTF). The criteria used in
the allocation methodology of the JTF are: (i) the GHG emissions of
industrial facilities when these exceed the EU average; (ii) the level of
employment in coal and lignite mining; (iii) the level of employment in
industry; (iv) the production of peat; (v) the production of oil shale and
(vi) the level of economic development [34].
Our methodological approach, described in detail below, goes
beyond existing vulnerability assessments of the low carbon transition
by i) applying the more recent IPCC concept of risk that incorporates
hazard, exposure and vulnerability itself, ii) considering sophisticated
information for the assessment of each sub-indicator, by employing CGE
model results and by incorporating more than one components that
define each sub-component specifically in the cases of adaptive capacity
and sensitivity, both identified as key methodological advancements by
McDowall et al. [29], iii) including in the assessment both fossil-fuel
production and extraction activities and fossil-fuel based power plants
which indicated as a key research limitation by McDowall et al. [29].
Finally, our work concludes with exploring potential existing socioeco­
nomic challenges faced by the identified EU regions at risk.
Z. Vrontisi et al.
Fig. 1. Socioeconomic risk index and its sub-indicators; own analysis.
Methodological approach
Despite well-developed literature being available on resilience seen
through the lens of disaster physical risk and its reduction through
climate change adaptation, research describing the patterns and de­
terminants of socioeconomic risk and resilience of a region is sparse
[32]. To this end, our methodology aims to identify the European re­
gions that are at socioeconomic risk, and more specifically at risk of job
loss because of the low carbon transition. The analysis draws partly on
the literature presented above, primarily regarding the components of
the risk sub-indicators, developing a risk index whose structure takes
insights from the climate physical risk approach as defined in the latest
IPCC Assessment Report (AR6). We adopt the latest definition of risk as
included in the IPCC Glossary, where risk is defined as “potential for
adverse consequences for human systems, recognizing the diversity of
values and objectives associated with such systems” [35]. We define our
socioeconomic risk index as a combination of Hazard, Exposure and
Vulnerability, as described in detail below and shown in Fig. 1 . We
assess the implications on fossil fuel-related sectors, such as coal mining,
production of crude oil and natural gas and refining of oil and petroleum
products, as well as the fossil fuel-based power supply. The geographical
scope of our analysis covers the Eurostat NUTS2 classification of terri­
torial units for statistics.
Components of the socioeconomic risk index
Hazard
Taking note of the hazard definition in the climate physical risk as­
sessments, in the socioeconomic context of this study, we relate hazard
to the potential occurrence of a policy-induced event or trend that may
cause adverse socioeconomic implications such as a loss of jobs and/or
income. For our analysis, this policy-induced event or trend is the ex­
pected decline in fossil fuel activities in EU regions due to a global low
carbon transition. For the EU regions, already in a “Current policies” or
3
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
baseline scenario, one expects that fossil fuel-related activities would
already be in decline given the climate and energy policies in place (see
for example the importance of fossil fuel related jobs in the JRC-GEM-E3
baseline scenario in 2030 described in [36]). In our analysis we consider
an even more ambitious mitigation scenario with coordinated global
mitigation action towards the achievement of a 1.5 ◦ C target. This sce­
nario assumes a common global carbon tax to be the key driver of
decarbonisation of the entire economic and energy system that drives
endogenously energy efficiency, the decarbonisation of the energy sys­
tem, the change of vehicle stock, an increase in the use of bioenergy,
carbon removal technologies and more. On a global level this effort is
equivalent to a CO2 carbon budget equal to 640 Gt CO2 for the period
2015–2050, while for the EU this translates to a 66 Gt CO2 budget for
the same period. To estimate the expected drop in production between
2050 and 2015, we employ the projections of the regional CGE
GEM-E3-R model [37] as described by the% difference of domestic
production in 2050 relative to 2015 levels for the fossil-fuel related
sectors discussed above. We note that we opt for changes as compared to
a historical year (2015) instead of a reference or baseline scenario, given
that already in the baseline scenario there is significant loss in produc­
tion of these sectors as mentioned above (see [2] and [36]). The specific
scenario assumptions and corresponding projections used for the
quantification of our risk index are presented in detail in the European
Commission [38] report. By using the GEM-E3-R model projections we
ensure a consistent approach that captures all direct and indirect effects
of the low-carbon transition on the performance of the sectors.
GEM-E3-R is a regional expansion of the large-scale global CGE model,
GEM-E3, which is widely used for the ex-ante assessment of climate and
energy policies (e.g., [6,2]).
Exposure
The definition of exposure under physical climate risks [39] can be
directly adopted in a socioeconomic context, namely that exposure is the
“presence of people in places and settings that could be adversely
Z. Vrontisi et al. Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129

affected”. Within the given scope of our analysis, we treat exposure as Table 1
the number of jobs that could be adversely affected by the low carbon wt of sub-indicators for the evaluation of the Socioeconomic Risk index.
transition. To quantify this, we measure the share of employment in the Risk index (R) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
carbon-intensive sectors. More specific, for the “Exposure” and “Hazard”
Hazard 0.33 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.08
components, the sectors in focus for this assessment are the sectors of i) Exposure 0.33 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.67 0.83
coal extraction, ii) gas extraction, iii) oil extraction, iv) distribution of Vulnerability 0.33 0.17 0.08 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.08
gas, v) refineries, vi) coal-fueled power plants, vii) gas-fueled power Vulnerability (V) V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7
plants and viii) oil-fueled power plants which are all individually rep­ Sensitivity 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.10 0.00 0.90 1.00
Adaptive Capacity 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.90 1.00 0.10 0.00
resented. specifically in fossil fuel production and extraction and Sensitivity (S) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
fossil-based power supply sectors. This is in line with approaches found Unemployment rate 0.33 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.08
in literature that consider the share of jobs at risk as key determinant of GDP per capita 0.33 0.17 0.08 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.08
risk or vulnerability (JRC 2018; [23,24]). As a base year of our analysis, Income per capita 0.33 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.67 0.83
Adaptive Capacity (AC) AC1 AC2 AC3 AC4 AC5 AC6 AC7
we take 2015, since (i) coal phase out and the low-carbon trans­
Investments per capita 0.33 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.08
formation of the energy system have not yet materialised, which allows Population between 50 0.33 0.17 0.08 0.67 0.83 0.17 0.08
us to consider risk drivers that are already present, (ii) it is a year of good – 65 years old
statistical data coverage and (iii) GEM-E3 model base year is 2014. Regional 0.33 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.67 0.83
Competitiveness
index
Vulnerability

Similarly to above, the definition of vulnerability in the physical risk
context can be also applied to our socioeconomic framework. In
particular, we can adopt the IPCC definition where vulnerability is
considered as “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected
and encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensi­
tivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt”.
We follow the same approach in our analysis and consider vulnerability
as a function of the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the regions to be
adversely affected by the policy-induced hazard, with the latter having a
negative functional relationship with vulnerability.
Sensitivity
In our analysis, sensitivity describes the degree to which livelihoods
and particularly local jobs are adversely affected, directly or indirectly,
by climate and energy policies in place. To this end in our framework,
sensitivity is defined as a function of unemployment rate, GDP per capita
and income per capita. The first sub-indicator has a positive functional
relationship with sensitivity, meaning that the higher the unemploy­
ment rate, the more sensitive the region is to changes in economic ac­
tivity that can lead to job losses, also given the existing oversupply of
labour (also identified as key driver of the macroeconomic stability of
the regional resilience index by Briguglio et al. [40]). GDP and income
per capita [41] are considered individually, although highly correlated,
since on a regional level the income and activity levels (GDP) can differ
substantially due to factor (labour, capital) utilization by or from other
regions, which leads to regional economic activity levels that do not
correspond to the regional income levels. Both latter sub-indicators have
a negative functional relationship with sensitivity as the richer a region
is, the less affected it is by the economic impacts of climate and energy
policies.
Adaptive capacity
We define adaptive capacity as the ability of systems, institutions,
humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take
advantage of opportunities or to respond to consequences. To this end
we consider the adaptive capacity of a region as a positive function of per
capita gross fixed capital formation (investments) and the Regional
Competitiveness Index, both of which describe the ability of the region, in
terms of available infrastructure, institutional, technological and human
capital capacity, to successfully allow for structural transformations in a
competitive manner and attract new types of economic activities and
investments [42,43]. The latter indicator [44] is a composite index that
encompasses and reconciles in a consistent way a large number of in­
dicators for the EU NUTS2 regions ranging from institutional capacity
indicators (e.g. corruption, rule of law) to macroeconomic stability (e.g.
government debt, net savings), infrastructure (e.g. road and railway
accessibility), health (e.g. life expectancy and infant mortality), basic
and higher education (e.g. Employer sponsored training and Lifelong
learning), labor market efficiency (e.g. Gender balance of employment,
share of population aged 15–24 not in education), technological readi­
ness (e.g. Firm-level technology absorption, Enterprises with fixed
broadband access) and innovation (e.g. Knowledge workers, Exports in
medium-high/high tech manufacturing). On the contrary, we assume
that adaptive capacity is a negative function of the ageing population
[45], considering the share of population between 50 and 65 years old as an
indicator of an ageing population that can relate to skill supply bottle­
necks [46] associated with a limited reskilling and upskilling capacity
and an inflexibility in moving towards new economic activities.
Estimation of the socioeconomic risk index
Normalization
To proceed with the calculation of the Socioeconomic Risk index, we
normalize all sub-indicators across the regions by using the Min-Max
approach (as in [13,23]) described in Eq. (1) below, in order to ensure
comparability and enable the aggregation of different sub-indicators and
their components.
Xr − Xmin
XNr = (1)
Xmax − Xmin
Weighting
Aiming at improving the robustness of our risk assessment, we
explore the effects of different weighting factors for each sub-indicator
and their components. Applying alternative weighting limits the
impact of correlated sub-indicators [47]. In our analysis, some examples
of correlated sub-indicators have been identified, namely the GDP and
income per capita, as indicated in the section on Sensitivity above, but
also the regional competitiveness index which consists of more than 70
indicators, of which unemployment rate and disposable income per
capita are included. Conducting a sensitivity with alternative weights
across indicators and sub-indicators thus adds to the robustness of
findings. Further it provides insights on the range of uncertainty or lack
thereof in identifying 20 EU regions that are most at risk of job losses
during the low carbon transition. By developing a range of weights
(based on a simple version of a geometric mean, which is among the
standards option of using weights in composite indicators [48], for the
sub-indicators as presented in Table 1, we can assume 2401 unique
combinations of these weights and assess their effects by assuming
different values of the weights to allocate a low importance (value close

4
Z. Vrontisi et al.
Fig. 2. Histogram of the number of appearances in top 20 positions of the Socioeconomic Risk index for the total of 2401 wt combinations. The first bin shows the
number of regions with zero occurrence in the top 20 positions.
Source: Own estimations
to zero) or a high importance (value close to one) of each component of
the sub-indicator or the risk index. The 2401 combinations are formed
by combining the seven (7) unique values of each of the four (4) levels
the risk indicator, namely Adaptive capacity (AC), Sensitivity (S),
Vulnerability (V) and Risk (R). For example the first of the 2401 com­
binations refers to the applying the weights of AC1, S1, V1, R1, while the
second refers to the weights described as of AC2, S1, V1, R1 and so on.
Depending on the socioeconomic context of the analysis, the scope of
implementation and the type of stakeholder that will make use of the
risk assessment results, different weights can be attributed to each level
and sub-indicator. For the purposes of our analysis and the presentation
of results, we have assessed all 2401 combinations and report either the
average of those or the ranges of the 2401 combinations.
Socioeconomic risk index
The resulting Socioeconomic Risk Index (SRI) for region r is calcu­
lated as described in Eqs. (2), (3, 4, 5) where H represents Hazard, E
stands for Exposure, V for Vulnerability, S for Sensitivity, AC for Adaptive
Capacity, Ur for Unemployment rate, GDPcap for GDP per capita, Icap for
Income per capita, Invcap for Investment per capita, POP50 for population
above 50 years old and RCI for Regional Competitiveness Index, while wh,
we, wv, ws, wa, wu, wg, wi, win, wp, wr stand for the respective weights of
each sub-indicator. Similar to Weis et al. [15] we combine all subindices
with multiplication
SRIr = Hrwh ∗ Erwe ∗ Vrwv (2)
( )
Vr = Srws ∗ 1 − ACr wa
(3)
( ) ( ) database.
Sr = Urrwu ∗ 1 − GDPcapwg
r ∗ 1 − Icapwi
r (4)
( )
ACr = Invcapwin wp
r ∗ 1 − POP50r ∗ RCIrwr (5)
By applying a core methodology of climate sciences to a socioeco­
nomic context, we attempt an interdisciplinary approach that allows a
well-informed estimation of a socioeconomic risk index. Thus, our
method can primarily be applied to energy and climate-related issues
but can also expand to other areas of research and policy analysis.
Data sources
The composite risk index is based on three-types of data: i) data
drawn directly from Eurostat or other data sources and used in their raw
form, ii) data drawn from Eurostat and combined with data drawn from
5
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
industry-specific reports and processed and ii) output data drawn from
the GEM-E3-R model. All data refer to the statistical year of 2015 except
the Regional Competitiveness Index which refers to 2019.
As a starting point to construct the databases used for the calculation
of the risk index, we use the databases used for the calibration of the
GEM-E3-R model. The model’s dimensions span to 67 sectors of activity
(including 10 power generation technologies) by NUTS-2 region and
includes information of employment and production levels (in monetary
terms). When estimating the “Hazard” component via the model’s re­
sults, the detailed sectorial resolution enables a more robust approxi­
mation of the importance of those sectors to regional economic activity,
allowing for a good representation of the sectoral value chains and the
respective impacts on demand and supply of the selected sectors for
analysis. The database is constructed combining i) raw Eurostat data, ii)
sectorial reports and iii) on modeller assumptions.
The sectorial resolution of publicly available regional databases,
differ from country to country, but is usually limited to (maximum) 11
sectors of the NACE rev.2 classification system. This level of aggregation
poses an important constraint for the assessment of region’s character­
istics and resilience to energy-related developments and climate change.
Hence, there is a need for further disaggregating the raw data.
Our starting point for the disaggregation of raw databases is the
employment statistics. We combine data from the Structural Business
Statistics (SBS) regional database, the JRC report on EU coal regions and
Eurostat’s national statistics. As the compilation of SBS and national
accounts are based on different statistical methodologies, the two da­
tabases do not directly complement one another. For this reason, our
methodology consists of decomposing employment data at the national
level using the spatial and sectorial structure of the regional SBS
Our primal goal is to fill the missing entries in the (time-series)
employment table of the regional SBS database (sbs_na_1a_se_r2,
sbs_na_dt_r2, sbs_na_ind_r2). The SBS database identifies in total 85 sec­
tors. To do so, we follow a four-step approach: i) at first, we combine
data on the number of local firms (at the NUTS-2) with the number of
employees per firm at the national level to populate the missing entries
of the regional table, and ii) at the second stage we fill the rest of the
entries combining data on the compensation of employees with data on
the average compensation of employees at the national level by industry
iii) at the third stage we use data regarding the location of industries.
The third step (iii) applies for industries such as refineries and power
production . Finally (iv), at the fourth stage and if there are no data at
the regional level for all years, then national statistics are spatially
disaggregated based on the share of the parent industry. All relevant
data are described in the Supplementary Information, Annex 2.
Z. Vrontisi et al.
Fig. 3. Frequency of appearances in the top 1–5, and all top 20 positions of the Socioeconomic Risk index in the 2401 wt combinations.
Source: Own estimations
Fig. 4. Histogram of the Socioeconomic Risk index, estimated as the average of 2401 wt combinations.
Source: Own estimations
For coal mining activities and power generation from coal fired
plants, we use data from JRC’s report “EU coal regions: opportunities
and challenges ahead” (2018). While for other power generation tech­
nologies we use data on installed capacity provided by the JRC Open
Power Plants Database and the ENSPRESO database. The number of
employees by power generation technology is then calculated by
multiplying the installed capacity with a labour coefficient (employees
per MW) drawn from Fragkos and Paroussos [49]. Power generation
related employment is assumed to be part of the aggregate sector
labelled “Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply” (NACE rev.2
code D). Finally for the transport sectors, we use data provided by
Eurostat’s regional transport statistics (reg_tran).
Once the table has been fully populated, we calculate the regional
labour share by industry. These shares are then used to disaggregate
employment by industry at the national level (nama_10_a64_e). The
vulnerability indicator considers mainly data on extraction industries
(coal, crude oil, natural gas) and energy-related industries (electricity
and natural gas transmission and distribution, refineries, power plants).
The GEM-E3-R output data are used to incorporate in the analysis the
evolution of sectorial production in the future (up to 2050).
Results
There is a strong divergence in the risk profiles across EU regions,
when it comes to the socioeconomic impacts of the low carbon transition
6
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
(Fig. 2). Taking into consideration all weight combinations as described
in Table 1 we find that 26 % of the EU NUTS 2 regions are found at least
once in the top 20 ranking positions of the socioeconomic risk index,
while 6 % (15 regions) of the regions are ranked in top 20 positions in
more than 80 % of the weight combinations (Fig. 4). This indicates –
with high certainty – that these regions face the risk of suffering from
adverse socioeconomic impacts, and more specifically of job losses, in
light of the low carbon transition, if a dedicated implementation of just
compensating policies is not pursued. These 15 regions are most
frequently found in the top 5 positions (Fig. 3) and register the highest
risk index, estimated as an average of all 2401 combinations. In fact,
these 15 top-ranking regions are the only out of the 242 EU NUTS2 re­
gions that register a risk index above 50 while most regions (139) have a
risk index below 30 (Figs. 4 and 5).
We thus focus on the top 15 regions at risk of socioeconomic impacts,
having considered both average risk estimations and frequency of
occurrence under the different weight combinations. The respective risk
index and its subcomponents for the 15 regions is described in Table 2.
Western Macedonia (GR) is the region with the highest risk index in
almost all weight combinations, while Silesia (PL) is found most often in
the second position, South-Western Oltenia (RO) in the third position,
Yugoiztochen (BG) in the fourth position and Estonia in the fifth highest
position of socioeconomic risk ranking. Two more Polish regions are
included in the top-15 high risk regions, Lodz and Lublin, along with
another Greek region, the Peloponnese, and regions in Romania (South
Z. Vrontisi et al. Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129

Fig. 5. Socioeconomic Risk index and its components by NUTS2 region as an average of a total of 2401 wt combinations.
Source: Own estimations

Table 2
The components of the Socioeconomic Risk index for the top-15 regions as per the average of the 2401 wt combinations.
Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Energy jobs GDPcap Income. Unem. Inv.cap Pop>50 RCI Risk index
(% of total) (€) cap (€) rate (%) (€) (%) (average)

EL53_Western 100 100 88 6.5 % 17,023 9870 31 3411 41 % 0.2 97

Macedonia
PL22_Silesia 96 98 63 6.4 % 11,738 7328 7 2000 37 % 1.3 85
RO41_South-Western 95 63 80 4.1 % 5833 2896 10 903 37 % 0.3 79
Oltenia
BG34_Yugoiztochen 94 48 78 3.1 % 5289 2805 10 1385 39 % 0.4 72
EE00_Estonia / Ida- 92 44 56 2.8 % 15,691 8956 6 3843 37 % 1.4 62
Virumaa
CZ04_Severozápad 92 39 61 2.5 % 11,625 7640 7 3097 36 % 1.2 62
CZ08_Moravia-Silesia 97 36 60 2.4 % 13,112 7905 8 3641 36 % 1.5 61
HR03_Adriatic Croatia 95 23 78 1.5 % 10,341 6254 17 2395 40 % 0.8 59
RO42_West 93 30 65 2.0 % 8382 4902 5 1696 35 % 0.6 59
EL65_Peloponnese 88 17 86 1.1 % 13,664 8684 22 2040 42 % 0.2 55
PL71_Łódz 99 18 66 1.1 % 10,516 6670 8 2173 38 % 1.1 53
RO31_South-Muntenia 88 15 77 1.0 % 6372 3107 10 1222 37 % 0.4 52
PL81_Lublin 93 16 70 1.0 % 7764 5558 9 1605 35 % 0.9 52
SK02_Western Slovakia 94 16 64 1.0 % 13,384 7613 10 2617 35 % 1.2 50
ES42_Castilla-La 94 11 75 0.7 % 17,992 11,890 26 3509 35 % 0.8 50
Mancha
Average EU 90 5 55 0.3 % 26,047 16,898 10 5373 38 % 1.4 31

Muntenia and West), Czech Republic (Severozapad, Moravia-Silesia),
Croatia (Adriatic Croatia), Slovakia (Western Slovakia) and Spain
(Castilla La Mancha). All identified regions in high-risk feature coal or
lignite production and power supply activities, except from Estonia,
South Muntenia, Castilla-La Mancha and Adriatic Croatia that have
other fossil fuel extraction (shale oil, oil, gas) and refining activities.
As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, what differentiates the risk scores amongst
the top-15 regions is the sub-indicator of Exposure (share of energy jobs
in total), while Hazard is equally high in all 15 regions. The regions
mostly exposed to socioeconomic risks of the low carbon transition are
those with a high share of direct fossil-fuel jobs. This share is around 6.5
% in Western Macedonia and Silesia (2015 data), much above the 2.5 %
average of all top-15 high risk regions.
Western Macedonia ranks first in all three sub-indicators, namely
Exposure, Hazard and Vulnerability, thus maintains the highest risk
score in most weight combinations. Silesia comes second position due to
the high share of energy jobs in total. South-Western Oltenia and the
Yugoiztochen regions are less exposed in terms of fossil fuel-related jobs
but exhibit high Sensitivity as a result of the very low GDP and income
per capita. They also have limited Adaptive Capacity resulting from low
investments per capita and low RCI score. Beyond the 4 regions with
highest risk, the estimated index score is significantly lower. In terms of
Vulnerability, the two Greek regions of Western Macedonia and the
Peloponnese record the highest scores as they combine high regional
unemployment levels and high share of population beyond the age of 50
as well as remarkably low RCI scores. When comparing the risk sub-
indicators of the top-15 high-risk regions to the EU average (Table 2),
we find that the 15 regions under consideration perform worse,

7
Z. Vrontisi et al.
Fig. 6. Decomposition of the Socioeconomic risk index for the top-15 regions as per the average of the 2401 wt combinations.
Source: Own estimations
Fig. 7. Annual GDP growth rates for the 2010–2020 period at the regional and national level for the 15 high-risk regions.
Source: Eurostat
particularly with regards to GDP, Income, Investments per capita and
the RCI. This is suggestive of important pre-existing socioeconomic
challenges these regions face, which are expected to intensify as the
energy transition is happening and thus need to be considered to ensure
a just and inclusive path to a low carbon economy.
Our results are also available online (https://energy-industry-geola
b.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). The socioeconomic risk index developed during
our research, and its subcomponents, has been included in the online
data maps developed by the JRC Energy and Industry Geography Lab
[50] under the layer of “Socioeconomic data” and the sub-layer of
“Socioeconomic impact of decarbonization”. The above visualization
tool enables by activating the relevant layers, among else, an overview
of fossil fuel infrastructure, the socioeconomic risk estimated in our
analysis but also the just transition policies in place.
Existing challenges of identified EU regions at risk
Here we present the performance of these 15 regions in key
8
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
macroeconomic indicators to investigate any pre- existing challenges
prior to the decarbonization of their economies. The performance in­
dicators that are employed in this section indicate the intensity of
challenges already in place in selected EU regions before the transition
materializes in full-scale. In addition, a selection of these key indicators
have also been considered for the evaluation of the Vulnerability
component of the risk indicator. The timeframe of analysis here is the
2010–2020 period, when a limited coal phase-out has already taken
place but not to the extend expected during the low carbon transition
towards EU climate neutrality. We find that the identified regions at risk
are lagging other EU territories in terms of economic growth and other
socioeconomic indicators. These two conditions expose them even more
to the challenges associated with the energy transition. The 2010–2020
GDP growth rate is lower than the respective national one for all regions
identified apart from the Peloponnese (Fig. 7). The GDP per capita of the
regions is significantly lower than the EU average, throughout the
2010–2020 period, indicating an existing lag even before the start of the
coal phase-out (Fig. 8), but also in most cases it is also found lower than
Z. Vrontisi et al.
Fig. 8. GDP per capita for the 15 high-risk EU regions and the EU27 average.
Source: Eurostat
Fig. 9. Composition of regional GVA by aggregate sectors in 2019 for the 15 high-risk EU regions and the EU27 average.
Source: Own estimations based on Eurostat
the respective national levels. In terms of employment, the picture varies
across the 15 high-risk regions, with some registering very high unem­
ployment levels and others close or lower than the EU average (Table 2).
Western Macedonia registers the second highest unemployment among
all EU regions. This significantly affects the sensitivity of the region to
structural shocks brought by the low-carbon transition. The divergence
in the current or past status of the regional labour market can be driven
by wider macroeconomic differences and economic performance (GDP
growth, labor intensity of fossil-related activities etc.) but also by the
level of diversification of the economies. In terms of the latter, the
findings again differ across the identified regions (Fig. 9). The top-raking
region, Western Macedonia, registers that highest contribution of the
Energy sector and the lowest contribution of Manufacturing in total GVA
in 2019, indicating high dependence on fossil-related activities.
Conclusion
The European Union has set itself the challenge to become the first
9
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
climate-neutral continent. Getting to net zero will require rapid and
radical structural change across the economy, from energy systems to
labour markets. The impacts of this transition will not be the same for all
EU regions. We confirm that there is a strong divergence across regional
risk profiles in the EU regions. Fossil-dependent economies with low
economic diversification, large contribution of fossil-related jobs and
high existing unemployment rates are most at risk.
Regions with economies that are highly dependent on fossil fuels,
which are the focus of this study, are expected to carry a dispropor­
tionate share of the burdens of the energy transition. It is therefore
critical to devise policies that are effective in alleviating this excess
burden from affected areas. A first step to this direction is to identify
which are the regions most at risk. The study develops a socio-economic
risk indicator and identifies the 15 EU regions likely to be affected the
most from the transition. The indicator rests on the latest definition of
the IPCC, which treats risk as the combination of Hazard, Exposure and
Vulnerability. By applying a methodology of climate sciences to a so­
cioeconomic context, we attempt an interdisciplinary approach that can
Z. Vrontisi et al. Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129

Table 3 Considering that the economic and social effects of the green tran­
Regions at risk under JTF and CINTRAN. sition on the EU regions will be asymmetric, some form of wealth
Member Mn JTF regions Inclusion in top 15 transfers will be required towards the most affected territories.
State allocated/ positions of the Compensating and supporting mechanisms need to be put in place to
% of total Socioeconomic risk minimize serious economic impacts and aggravated social inequalities.
indicator
To this end, most of the recognized regions at risk are identified by the
BG 1178 (6.7 Maritsa, Bobov Dol Yugoiztochen (includes European Commission as eligible to receive funding from the Just
%) Maritsa) Transition Fund (Table 3). A notable exception are the regions in Ger­
CZ 1493 (8.5 Moravskolezsky, Severozápad (includes
%) Ustecky, Karlovarsky Ustecky, Karlovarsky)
many, which receive the second highest Just Transition Funds, but
Moravian-Silesian feature low risk rates due to their low sensitivity (good economic per­
Region formance) and high adaptive capacity (high competitiveness and infra­
(Moravskolezsky) structure quality).
DE 2254 (12.9 Elbe-Elster, N/A
We note that our results are highly dependent on data availability
EE %) Oberspreewald-Lausitz,
322 (1.88 Dahme-Spreewald, EE is NUTS2 region and data quality, which has important limitations when it comes to the
%) Spree-Neiße, Cottbus, regional level of analysis, e.g. NUTS 2. Future research would thus
Bautzen, Görlitz, Leipzig, benefit from improved and consistent publicly available datasets at the
the City of Leipzig, NUTS 2 level at a high sectoral resolution. Future research could explore
Nordsachsen,
Burgenlandkreis,
the implications of geographical isolation and migration patterns to the
Saalekreis, the City of risk profiles of the EU regions. Further, research could expand the
Halle, Mansfeld- analysis to sectors beyond the strictly fossil fuel-related ones, as for
Südharz, Anhalt- example are energy intensive industries, in order to also comprehend
Bitterfeld, Düren, Rhein-
overall competitiveness and other indirect effects of the low carbon
Kreis Neuss, Rhein-Erft-
Kreis transition. Finally, alternative policy designs and decarbonization sce­
Northeastern narios could be assessed, for example by considering an EU-only action
ES 790 (4.5 %) Asturias, León, Palencia, Castilla la Mancha in comparison to the global mitigation effort assessed here, thus
Cádiz, A Coruña, allowing for a more thorough comprehension of potential socioeco­
Córdoba, Almería, and
nomic hazards.
Teruel
EL 755 (4.3 %) Kozani, Kastoria, Florina Western Macedonia
(Western Macedonia), Peloponnese CRediT authorship contribution statement
Megalopolis
(Peloponnese),
Zoi Vrontisi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology,
Heraklion, Lasithi,
Rethimno, Chania Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft,
(Crete) and Aegean Writing – review & editing. Ioannis Charalampidis: Data curation,
Islands (Lesvos, Samos, Formal analysis, Software. Konstantinos Fragkiadakis: Methodology,
Chios, Rhodes, Mykonos)
Software. Alkistis Florou: Writing – original draft.
HR 169 (1 %) Sisak-Moslavina, Istria Adriatic Croatia
(includes Istria)
PL 3500 (20 %) Katowice, Bielsko–Biała, Łódz Lublin Declaration of competing interest
Tychy, Rybnik, Gliwice, Śląskie - Silesia
Bytom, Sosnowiec, (includes: Katowice;
Konin, Wałbrzych Bielsko – Biała, Tychy, The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
Rybnik, Gliwice, Bytom, lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Sosnowiec) Zoi Vrontisi and all co-authors report financial support was provided
RO 1947 (11.1 Hunedoara, Gorj, Dolj, South-Western Oltenia
by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
%) Galați, Prahova and (Gorj, Dolj)
Mureş South-Muntenia (Jiu funding the CINTRAN project [grant agreement No. 884539] and the
Valley) West ADJUST project [grant agreement No. 101069880].
(Hunedoara)
SK 418 (2.4 %) Trencin, Kosice Western Slovakia Data availability
includes Trencin

Data will be made available on request.

be applied not only on energy and climate-related issues but also on
other areas of research and policy analysis.
We find that a key determinant in the risk profile of the regions is
Exposure, defined as the share of direct energy jobs in total employment.
We find a wide divergence across the risk profiles of EU regions; 74 % of
the EU NUTS 2 regions face no risk from the transition, 26 % of the EU
NUTS 2 regions are found at least once in the top 20 ranking positions of
the socioeconomic risk index. 6 % (the 15 high-risk regions) are ranked
in top 20 positions in more than 80 % of the assessed risk combinations.
139 out of 242 EU NUTS2 regions register a risk index below 30, while
15 regions register a risk index above 50. By identifying the high-risk
regions, we provide evidence-based insights on the need for tailored
policy support that can alleviate negative socioeconomic implications
and pro-actively create alternative pathways of economic development.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.egycc.2024.100129.
References
[1] G. Luderer, Z. Vrontisi, C. Bertram, et al., Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 ◦ C
pathways, Nature Clim Change 8 (2018) 626–633, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-018-0198-6.
[2] Z. Vrontisi, K. Fragkiadakis, M. Kannavou, et al., Energy system transition and
macroeconomic impacts of a European decarbonization action towards a below 2
C climate stabilization, Clim. Change 162 (2020) 1857–1875.
◦

[3] EU (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the
This type of compensating policy response is particularly relevant given Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate
our finding that most high-risk regions already face economic challenges neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999
(‘European Climate Law’).
and lag the national averages in terms of growth and incomes.
[4] European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final.

10
Z. Vrontisi et al.
[5] EEA. (2022). Data viewer on greenhouse gas emissions and removals, sent by
countries to UNFCCC and the EU Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Mechanism. https
://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-vie
wer (last accessed 14/10/2022).
[6] P. Fragkos, K. Fragkiadakis, B. Sovacool, L. Paroussos, Z. Vrontisi, I. Charalampidis,
Equity implications of climate policy: assessing the social and distributional
impacts of emission reduction targets in the European Union, Energy 237 (2021)
121591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121591, 2021ISSN 0360-5442.
[7] European Commission (2020a), Impact Assessment Accompanying the
Communication “Stepping Up Europe’s 2030 Climate Ambition” SWD(2020) 176
final.
[8] European Commission, Communication from The Commission to The European
Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The
Committee of The Regions Stepping Up Europe’s 2030 Climate Ambition Investing
in A Climate-Neutral Future for The Benefit of Our People, COM (2020) 562,
2020final.
[9] B. Sovacool, et al., Conflicted transitions: exploring the actors, tactics, and
outcomes of social opposition against energy infrastructure, Global Environ.
Change 73 (2022) 102473, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102473,
2022ISSN 0959-3780.
[10] F. Denton, K. Halsnæs, K. Akimoto, S. Burch, C. Diaz Morejon, F. Farias, J. Jupesta,
A. Shareef, P. Schweizer-Ries, F. Teng, E. Zusman, et al., Accelerating the transition
in the context of sustainable development. In IPCC, 2022: climate Change 2022:
mitigation of Climate Change, in: P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie,
R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.019.
[11] A. Reitzenstein, R. Popp, P.Y. Oei, H. Brauers, N. Stognief, C. Kemfert, J. Kurwan,
T. Wehnert, Structural Change in Coal Regions As a Process of Economic and
Social-Ecological Transition – Lessons learnt from Structural Change Processes in
Germany, German Environment Agency, 2021.
[12] Md.Nasif Ahsan, Jeroen Warner, The socioeconomic vulnerability index: a
pragmatic approach for assessing climate change led risks–A case study in the
south-western coastal Bangladesh, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 8 (2014) 32–49,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.12.009.
[13] G. Balaganesh, Ravinder Malhotra, R. Sendhil, Smita Sirohi, Sanjit Maiti,
K. Ponnusamy, Adesh Kumar Sharma, Development of composite vulnerability
index and district level mapping of climate change induced drought in Tamil Nadu,
India, Ecol. Indic. 113 (2020) 106197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2020.106197. –.
[14] Das, et al., Linking IPCC AR4 & AR5 frameworks for assessing vulnerability and
risk to climate change in the Indian Bengal Delta, Prog. Disaster. Sci. 7 (2020)
100110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100110, 2020-.
[15] Shawn W.Margles Weis, Vera N. Agostini, Lynnette M. Roth, Ben Gilmer, Steven
R. Schill, John English Knowles, Ruth Blyther, Assessing vulnerability: an
integrated approach for mapping adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and exposure,
Clim. Change 136 (3–4) (2016) 615–629, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-
1642-0.
[16] IPCC, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007. M L Change.
[17] IPCC (2012). Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi et al.
(Eds.) Available from Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building,
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU ENGLAND, 582 pp. Available from June
2012.
[18] IPCC, Summary for policymakers, in: C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.
J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
On Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 1–32.
[19] IPCC (2022), Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S.
Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S.
Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: climate Change 2022: impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C.
Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S.
Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press. In Press. Kiviet, J. (1995). On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various
estimators in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 68, No. 1,
pp. 53-78. LeSage, J. and Pace, R.K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics.
Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[20] Jagmohan Sharma, Nijavalli H Ravindranath, Applying IPCC 2014 framework for
hazard-specific vulnerability assessment under climate change, Environ. Res.
Commun. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab24ed. –.
[21] A. Ishtiaque, R. Estoque, H. Eakin, J. Parajuli, Y Rabby, IPCC’s current
conceptualization of ‘vulnerability’ needs more clarification for climate change
vulnerability assessments, J. Environ. Manage. (303) (2022) 114246, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114246, 2022ISSN 0301-4797.
[22] R.J. Nicholls, F.M.J. Hoozemans, M. Marchand, Increasing flood risk and wetland
losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses, Global Environ.
Change 9 (1999) S69–S87.
[23] Sanya Carley, Tom P. Evans, Michelle; Graff, David M. Konisky, A framework for
evaluating geographic disparities in energy transition vulnerability, Nat. Energy
(2018), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0142-z. –.
11
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
[24] Brian F. Snyder, Vulnerability to decarbonization in hydrocarbon-intensive
counties in the United States: a just transition to avoid post- industrial decay,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42 (2018) 34–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2018.03.004.
[25] K. Allen, Vulnerability reduction and the community-based approach, in: Pelling
(Ed.), Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalising World, 2003,
pp. 170–184.
[26] Polsky, C.;. Neff, R.; Yarnal, B. (2007). Building comparable global change
vulnerability assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. 17(3–4), 0–485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.005.
[27] Raimi, D. (2021). Mapping County-Level Exposure and Vulnerability to the US
Energy Transition.
[28] Alves Dias, P., Kanellopoulos, K., Medarac, H., Kapetaki, Z., Miranda Barbosa, E.,
Shortall, R., Czako, V., Telsnig, T., Vazquez Hernandez, C., Lacal Arantegui, R.,
Nijs, W., Gonzalez Aparicio, I., Trombetti, M., Mandras, G., Peteves, E. and Tzimas,
E., EU coal regions: opportunities and challenges ahead, EUR 29292 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-
89884-6 (online),978-92-79-89883-9 (print), https://doi.org/10.2760/064809
(online),10.2760/668092 (print), JRC112593.
[29] W. McDowall, T. Reinauer, P. Fragkos, et al., Mapping regional vulnerability in
Europe’s energy transition: development and application of an indicator to assess
declining employment in four carbon-intensive industries, Clim. Change 176
(2023) 7, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03478-w.
[30] OECD, Regional Industrial Transitions to Climate Neutrality, OECD Regional
Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/
35247cc7-en.
[31] Ibarrarán, E.M.; Malone, E.L.; Brenkert, L.A. (2010). Climate change vulnerability
and resilience: current status and trends for Mexico. 12(3), 365–388. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-009-9201-8.
[32] Michaela; Staníčková, Lukáš Melecký, Understanding of resilience in the context of
regional development using composite index approach: the case of European Union
NUTS-2 regions, Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 5 (1) (2018) 231–254, https://doi.org/
10.1080/21681376.2018.1470939.
[33] European Commission (2020c). European Semester 2020 – Overview of Investment
Guidance on the Just Transition Fund 2021-2027 per Member State (Annex D).
[34] European Commission (2020d). Allocation method for the Just Transition Fund.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_66 .(last
accessed 14/10/2022).
[35] IPCC (2019). Annex I: glossary [van Diemen, R. (ed.)]. In: climate Change and
Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation,
sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte,
H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M.
Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P.
Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].
[36] M. Weitzel, T. Vandyck, L.R. Los Santos, M. Tamba, U. Temursho, K. Wojtowicz,
A comprehensive socio-economic assessment of EU climate policy pathways, Ecol.
Econ. 204 (Part A) (2023) 107660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2022.107660, 2023ISSN 0921-8009.
[37] I. Charalampidis, P. Karkatsoulis, P. Capros, A Regional Economy-Energy-
Transport Model of the EU for Assessing Decarbonization in, Transport. Energies 12
(2019) 3128, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12163128.
[38] Z. Van Hummelen, S. Micallef, J. Stenning, et al., The macroeconomic implications
of the clean energy transition at regional and sectoral level, Publications Office of
the Eur. Union (2022). 10.2833/62645.
[39] IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5 ◦ C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5 ◦ C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty
V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla et al.
(eds.).
[40] L. Briguglio, G. Cordina, N. Farrugia, S. Vella, Economic vulnerability and
resilience: concepts and measurements, Oxf Dev Stud 37 (2009) 229–247.
[41] Marianne Sensier, Gillian Bristow, Adrian Healy, Measuring Regional Economic
Resilience across Europe: operationalizing a complex concept, Spat. Econ. Anal.
(2016) 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2016.1129435.
[42] Ron; Martin, Peter Sunley, On the notion of regional economic resilience:
conceptualization and explanation, J. Econ. Geography 15 (1) (2015) 1–42,
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu015.
[43] J. Sutton, G. Arku, Regional economic resilience: towards a system approach, Reg.
Stud. Reg. Sci. 9 (1) (2022) 497–512, https://doi.org/10.1080/
21681376.2022.2092418.
[44] Annoni P. and Dijkstra L. (2019). The EU regional competitvenss index. DG REGIO
European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/
work/2019_03_rci2019.pdf (accessed on 08/07/2022).
[45] Nataša Urbančíková, Kristína Zgodavová, Sustainability, Resilience and Population
Ageing along Schengen’s Eastern Border, Sustain. 11 (10) (2019) 2898, https://
doi.org/10.3390/su11102898.
[46] Nicole Maestas, Kathleen J. Mullen, David Powell, The Effect of Population Aging
On Economic Growth, the Labor Force and Productivity, RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, CA, 2016, 2016, https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1063-1.
html.
[47] S. Greco, A. Ishizaka, M. Tasiou, G. Torrisi, On the methodological framework of
composite indices: a review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness,
Soc. Indic. Res. 141 (2019) 61–94.
Z. Vrontisi et al.
[48] W. Becker, M. Saisana, P. Paruolo, I. Vandecasteele, Weights and importance in
composite indicators: closing the gap, Ecol. Indic. 80 (2017) 12–22, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056, 2017PagesISSN 1470-160X.
12
Energy and Climate Change 5 (2024) 100129
[49] P. Fragkos, L. Paroussos, Employment creation in EU related to renewables
expansion, Appl. Energy 230 (2018) 935–945, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.09.032, 2018, PagesISSN 0306-2619.
[50] JRC (2022) Energy and Industry Geography Lab. https://energy-industry-geolab.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/.