1. GILDED wp2 – Comparative report

2. Comments Data correction and data amendment Maps – project map - case study areas maps – sources ????? Deadline ?

3. The way it is organised makes it difficult for a reader to grasp the main points in a short period of time Suggestions: add an executive summary of 1-2 pages highlighting the overall approach and major findings add more subheadings throughout highlight in bold in the text what the main point of each section is (e.g. a summary statement comparing the five case studies on the issue in question).

4. integrate the input paper into the overall report strengthen the methods section, and provide better support to the governance models expansion of 3.7 - interesting but too brief more explanation for the concluding remarks and policy recommendations consider moving some of the detailed information for which there is no direct comparison between countries, to an appendix

5. Comments need to be discussed identify specific cases of 'good governance' where something has worked particularly well, or an area where one of the case studies is clearly ahead of the others and put it in a text box Maybe we can enrich the recommendations by including some more information on „instruments” which we have gathered for our reports and focus more on household consumption description of the theory behind the different models integrated with the specific cases studied not clear where some of the recommendations have come from, or what they might look like in practice

6. Clarification 1 Thus, the regional and territorial diversity will become clear at once. Except for Assen, all GILDED areas should be on the level of NUTS 3 regions, at least in terms of population size. Even if the NUTS3-regions don’t fit, one will get an immediate idea where the regions are located

7. Clarification 2 in terms of layout: it would be useful to highlight each national case study and to follow the same order throughout the paper (of course only where it makes sense to include a (short) chapter about the general EU policies which determine action on the local level (research question 2: “What are the National and European boundary conditions for local energy-policy making”). Here it would be also useful, in our opinion, to shortly state the national energy mix and the reductions goals on European, national and local (if available) level. This would be also helpful for the “Impact Assessment” Chapter.

8. Clarification 3 compare our regions regarding their connection to European or national networks (e.g. Convent of Mayors, Climate Alliance, CCP, ICLEI, or Local Agenda 21 etc). lots of initiatives deal with promoting sustainable development on the local level and it would be interesting to know if there are also other cases where the membership in one of the networks has facilitated changes in our GILDED regions or not

9. Clarification 4 At various points it is mentioned that the background information of chapter 2 (Infrastructure) is important for the subsequent chapter of governance. This link, however, is not yet apparent in the conclusions. Maybe the infrastructural factors are not that important after all? At least one should be able to draw some conclusions from

10. Clarification 5 Maybe it would be an idea to concentrate on the differences, which might also explain differences in the energy development of each region. As for the similarities, here it might be interesting to contrast our data with European data sets, in order to study if these are maybe general European trends (increase of meat consumption, whereas the money spent for food decreases, increase of car ownership (first in the Western countries, then in the Eastern?), increasing living space per person, increasing number of single-households etc).

11. Clarification 6 It seems that you are referring to the different roles a local municipality can play (consumer, planner, provider, advisor p 5 German Report). However, the roles are not clear and probably need a general introduction, otherwise it’s confusing for readers. The examples from the cities are somewhat mixed and it’s not really clear what to conclude.

12. Clarification 7 there are some interesting remarks mentioned in this table – maybe we can elaborate some of the ideas a bit more 5.1 table

13. Further works on wp2 CR 1, Inclusion of reactions to Open questions and Clarification 1–6 need basic, complementary contribution from national teams if so….. 2, timing ????