Telling the transition: Citizen perspectives and communication approaches in the Dutch energy transition

Following the Paris Agreement, the transition to a more sustainable energy system has become a cornerstone of Dutch climate policy. This transition depends on widespread public engagement: people are increasingly expected to take ownership of their energy production and consumption, and policymakers rely on citizen support to legitimize emerging agendas. Yet many citizens report dissatisfaction with, or disconnect from, the transition process. In response, communication has often aimed to move people from apathy or resistance toward acceptance, treating the public as “for” or “against” the transition. This acceptance lens flattens the plurality of perspectives and obscures the normative judgments by which citizens assess what counts as a ‘good’ transition. As a result, much communication risks reinforcing, rather than resolving, dissatisfaction and disconnect. Addressing this gap calls for approaches that attend to, and resonate across, the perspectives Dutch citizens hold regarding the energy transition.

This dissertation asks: What perspectives may Dutch citizens hold on the energy transition, and how can understanding these perspectives lead to more resonant communication approaches? In doing so, it advances two contributions.

First, it shows that Dutch citizens do not line up along a simple pro–anti axis. Rather, they bring multiple, patterned ways of seeing the transition. Perspectives differ in (a) what they attend to, (e.g., technologies, governance, fairness, pace, landscape impacts), and (b) how they appraise those issues (e.g., as desirable or burdensome). These differences are shaped by relatively stable normative foundations, notably personal values, social identities, and ideals, which guide attention and appraisal across issues. Second, it demonstrates that one-size-fits-all communication is unlikely to foster engagement. More resonant communication acknowledges this plurality and tailors messages to citizens’ normative foundations, signalling recognition of what matters to them and why. Such tailoring does not erase disagreement nor guarantee behavioral change, but it may secure initial receptivity, reduce reactance, and create conditions for more productive, durable engagement.

Overall, the dissertation reframes public engagement from “securing acceptance” to recognizing perspectives, offering a foundation for communication that is coherent, value-aware, and better aligned with communicative citizenship.