*1.5. Research Aim*

The primary, practical objective is to explore whether a social niche—energy communities—can be cross-fertilized by a technological one—urban building energy modelling. The main research question is built around the phrase "technological trigger", which in this context describes multiple ways a technology enables or supports the penetration of an innovative social concept. This, in the context of energy communities means three things: it can either trigger the creation of new energy communities, it can accelerate the growth or diversification of energy communities and it can push the social niche of energy communities towards becoming absorbed by the regime. On that premise, the main research question and its decomposition is as follows:

Main research question (MRQ): Is urban building energy modelling a technological trigger for energy communities?

RQ1: Which factors trigger energy community progression in different use-cases?

RQ2: Which factors trigger energy community progression at their different lifecycle phases?

RQ3: Is it possible to identify different utilities of UBEM tool-types during the lifecycle of energy communities?

The main research question refers to matching UBEM against specific factors that influence the progression of ECs from social niches. Therefore, the answer will provide a set of these factors and argue how UBEM interacts with them. Subsequent research questions disaggregate this answer in three ways: by use-cases of ECs (RQ1), by EC lifecycle phases (RQ2), by UBEM tool types (RQ3). Investigating them are justified by three hypotheses that express such disaggregation will be meaningful (see H1, H2, H3 below).

RQ1 is required as the common classification of ECs differentiate them by their functional diversity (single-purpose, and multi-purpose) or by location specificity (place-based, non-place-based) [3]. On the one-hand UBEM tools themselves are place-based, narrowing the scope of the study. On the other hand, it is expected that the core activity of the energy community, for example whether it is providing flexibility services, invest in renewable energy production, will have different challenges, development processes and different potential entry points for UBEM or other technological innovations. This expectation is expressed in hypothesis H1, where EC use-case is defined as the core energy management activity, which is being shared:

**Hypothesis (H1).** *Di*ff*erent use-cases of energy communities have di*ff*erent factors to progress from niches to which UBEM tools respond di*ff*erently.*

Second, it is reasonable to expect that different challenges burden ECs during different phases of their lifecycle. It is also a possibility that similar challenges in different stages respond to UBEM features differently. RQ2 thus disaggregates the MRQ to lifecycle, and the expectation is expressed as hypothesis H2:

**Hypothesis (H2).** *Energy communities in di*ff*erent lifecycle phases have di*ff*erent factors to progress from niches to which UBEM tools respond di*ff*erently.*

Finally, it is reasonable to expect that UBEM itself has the variety to offer different strengths either per use-case or per lifecycle phase. This means, again, a disaggregation of the main research question to an UBEM tool classification (RQ3), to which a third hypothesis is formulated:

**Hypothesis (H3).** *Di*ff*erent types of UBEM tools accelerate energy community progression from niches di*ff*erently.*

In the light of previous reviews and the theories, answering the main research question also carries over to practical objectives in providing a manual for EC planners to the world of UBEM and in raising awareness for future R&D trajectories for UBEM. Literacy in UBEM is hypothesised to give means to justify EC potential in low-carbon transition of cities and communities. On the other hand, application-oriented analyses of UBEM tools, such as this study, will provide criteria for UBEM development as it seeks its appropriate market. Finally, with the introduction of affordances to the conceptual framework of the multi-level perspective, a third practical objective of the study is to expand the scope of the SNM literature to technologically enabled social (sociotechnical) niche management. This is done so through demonstrating the conceptual framework based on affordances on the case of UBEM enabling ECs.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methodology of a two-tiered systematic literature review and builds an analytic framework by expanding a strategic niche management approach with the concept of affordances. In Section 3, results are presented as follows: Sections 3.1–3.3 contain the results of the EC meta-review, and Section 3.4 is an analysis of UBEM tools in the EC context. In Section 4, the known limitations of this paper are discussed followed by the reflections on the original research questions and pointing out possible trajectories for future work. Finally, the last section completes the paper with the conclusion in Section 5.
