エネルギー転換における公正とガバナンスに関する文献計量レビュー
A bibliometric review on justice and governance in energy transitions (原題)
Muhammad Chaeroel Ansar, A. Hasyim Asyari Amir Husni
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
2015〜2025年のScopus収録201件を対象に、エネルギー転換における公正とガバナンス研究の知的構造・地理分布・テーマ進化をPRISMA準拠の文献計量とサイエンスマッピングで分析した。研究の主導権は少数のグローバルノース諸国・機関に集中する一方、国際共著ネットワークは一様ではなく、少なくとも一つのグローバルサウス諸国が中心的位置を占める。知的構造も単一の西洋理論に還元できず、社会技術論・批判的都市論・脱植民地政治生態学・ケイパビリティ公正論が併存する。公正と政策志向の研究は代替ではなく並行発展し、公正はガバナンス志向研究の中で再枠組み化されてきた。
English
A PRISMA-guided bibliometric and science-mapping review of 201 Scopus publications (2015–2025) on justice and governance in energy transitions. Research leadership remains concentrated in Global North institutions, yet the collaboration network is not uniformly Northern-dominated, with at least one Global South country highly central. The intellectual structure combines socio-technical, critical-urban, decolonial political ecology and capability-based justice traditions. Justice and policy-focused research evolved in parallel, with justice reframed within governance-oriented work rather than displaced.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではGX推進と地域のエネルギー転換（再エネ導入・送配電・原子力再稼働等）において「公正な移行」の議論が緒についたばかりであり、政策・投資家対話に公正概念を組み込む際の理論的枠組みの整理として参考になる。ただし炭素会計やSSBJ開示とは直接の接続はない。
In the global GX context
Globally, the just transition is increasingly embedded in ISSB/CSRD social-disclosure debates and transition-finance taxonomies; this review maps how justice scholarship has been absorbed into governance framings, useful for scholars and standard-setters asking how equity concerns enter disclosure and transition planning. It also highlights the geographic concentration of theoretical authority, relevant to ongoing critiques of Northern-dominated ESG and transition frameworks.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:エネルギー転換研究における公正・ガバナンス領域の知的構造とテーマ進化を俯瞰する地図として活用できる。
🏢実務担当者:トランジション計画に公正・地域影響の視点を組み込む際、どの理論的枠組みが使われているかを把握する参考になる。
🏛政策担当者:公正な移行政策とガバナンス研究の並行発展を示し、政策設計に公正概念をどう統合するかの示唆を与える。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study examines the intellectual structure, geographic distribution, and thematic evolution of scholarship on justice and governance in energy transitions. Using a PRISMA-guided bibliometric and science-mapping approach, the analysis draws on 201 Scopus-indexed publications from 2015 to 2025, combining performance analysis with co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic evolution techniques. The findings show that research leadership remains concentrated in a relatively small group of Global North countries and institutions, although the country-collaboration network is not uniformly dominated by the Global North, as at least one Global South country occupies a highly central position. The intellectual structure of the field is also more diverse than a single Western theoretical tradition would suggest, combining socio-technical and critical-urban scholarship with decolonial political ecology and capability-based justice theory. Thematic evolution further indicates that justice-oriented and policy-focused research have developed alongside each other rather than one displacing the other. This suggests that justice has not declined as the field has become more focused on governance; instead, justice concerns have been reframed within broader governance-oriented research. These findings suggest that energy justice scholarship remains critically engaged while expanding its empirical and policy focus. At the same time, the authority to define its theoretical terms remains geographically concentrated. This study contributes a systematic account of how knowledge production, theoretical perspectives, and research themes have evolved in the field, highlighting the importance of recognizing the Global South not only as a research setting but also as a source of theoretical insight.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2026.101678first seen 2026-10-25 04:36:51 · last seen 2026-11-04 04:38:25
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。