Barriers to the Diffusion of Clean Energy Communities: Comparing Early Adopters and the General Public

Abstract

The transition to clean energy is at the heart of the European Union’s climate strategy, with citizen participation promoted as a key driver. Clean energy communities (CECs) are central to this vision, yet their uptake across Europe remains limited. This study provides a novel comparative perspective on perceived barriers to CEC participation by examining two distinct groups: current members (early adopters) and the general public (potential adopters). Using a cross-national mixed-methods approach, we integrate data from semi-structured interviews with CEC members and a representative survey of citizens in six European countries. The results show that awareness of CECs is generally low and that initiatives are still in the early stages of adoption. While interviewees highlighted regulatory complexity and institutional barriers, survey respondents were more likely to cite lack of awareness, knowledge gaps, and financial concerns. The findings reveal distinct patterns in perceived barriers across adopter groups and national contexts. To support broader engagement, we propose a dual strategy: addressing structural challenges through regulatory and policy reform, while strengthening targeted communication and outreach. We also highlight the role of early adopters as trusted messengers who can help bridge the gap between innovation and mainstream adoption.

1. Introduction

Clean energy communities (CECs) are often regarded as a cornerstone of a sustainable and just energy transition. For our purposes, we define these communities as ”associations of actors engaged in energy system transformation through collective, participatory, and engaging processes, seeking collective outcomes” [1] (p. 3). Such communities, which can take various forms—either as ”communities of place” within a localised area or ”communities of interest” that operate virtually [2]—enable collective participation in energy system transformation [1,3]. The European Union (EU) has actively promoted CECs through the Clean Energy for All Europeans package and related policy frameworks, viewing them as instruments to democratise energy production and consumption [4]. Over the past decade, pilot projects, national support schemes, and local energy initiatives have proliferated across Europe [5]. However, despite this growing momentum in EU countries, participation in such communities remains limited and uneven [6,7,8]. Studies highlight persistent legal, financial, informational, and trust-related barriers to broader citizen involvement [9], particularly among those not already active in energy communities.

While the diffusion of innovations theory [10] has been applied to examine the uptake of renewable energy technologies—particularly individual technologies such as solar PV—its applicability to more collective and governance-oriented models such as energy communities remains underexplored. CECs introduce added layers of complexity, including participatory governance, shared financial risk, and institutional coordination, which may not align neatly with linear models of adoption [11]. The recent literature suggests that community energy initiatives are shaped not only by individual attitudes or awareness, but also by regulatory environments, place-based identities, and social trust [9,11]. These dynamics call for approaches that distinguish between different groups of actors—including early adopters and those still unfamiliar or hesitant to participate—within the adoption process. Although the existing literature on CECs explores various challenges to their establishment [12], much of this research overlooks the role of individuals as active agents in shaping and navigating these institutional arrangements [13].

Moreover, while social barriers, such as public perception and behavioural resistance, are widely recognised as critical for CEC adoption [7], limited attention has been given to how individuals perceive barriers to participation. Willingness to engage is closely linked to awareness of opportunities and the availability of psychological, social, and economic resources to act [14,15]. A gap remains in understanding how perceived barriers vary among different adopter groups (e.g., early adopters versus the late majority) and how these perceptions influence engagement. Most studies on clean energy diffusion focus on solar PV adoption and often categorise consumers into simple adopter vs. non-adopter categories [16]. Yet, research on innovation diffusion suggests that the adoption of clean energy technologies and business models occurs progressively, not uniformly, across society [17]. Early adopters may play a critical role in shaping wider adoption patterns [18], but a persistent ”chasm” often separates them from the mainstream, driven by different expectations, motivations, and risk perceptions. Bridging this gap requires tailored approaches that address the unique needs of each group and foster widespread participation [17,19].

The primary objective of this paper is to explore how individuals perceive barriers to participation in CECs and how these perceptions differ between two key groups: early adopters (existing members) and potential adopters (members of the general public). Drawing on a cross-national, mixed-methods design conducted across six European countries, the study combines qualitative data from 42 semi-structured interviews with communities’ members and quantitative data from a stratified, representative online survey with 1500 respondents per country. These two datasets were collected independently using different instruments and sampling strategies. While they are not directly integrated, their comparison offers a complementary perspective on perceived barriers at different stages of the adoption curve. Our approach does not attempt statistical generalisation between two groups, but rather an interpretative synthesis aimed at identifying converging and diverging perceptions. This approach reflects a growing recognition that mixed-methods studies can provide richer insights into social acceptance and participation patterns, even when direct statistical integration is not feasible [11].

To this end, the paper addresses two research questions: (1) What is the level of awareness of CECs among the general population, and how widespread is early participation across six countries studied? (2) What are the perceived barriers to participation, and how do these differ between early adopters (as seen for others) and potential adopters (as seen for themselves)?

Drawing on Rogers’ [10] diffusion of innovations theory—an approach still underexplored in the study of energy communities [17]—this paper contributes to the growing literature on clean energy participation by investigating how individuals perceive barriers to joining CECs. We explore how perceived obstacles vary across different stages of adoption by focusing on two distinct groups: current members (early adopters) and members of the general public (potential adopters). In doing so, we extend diffusion theory into the collective and participatory realm of energy governance, highlighting how informational, institutional, and psychological dynamics influence uptake beyond the individual level.

Our comparative approach provides a rare dual perspective on the motivations and constraints that shape energy community engagement. By contrasting the reflections of members with the perceptions of outsiders, the study offers a more comprehensive understanding of why some individuals engage while others remain hesitant. These insights have practical value for policy and practice, indicating the necessity of differentiated strategies that consider diverse adopter profiles. In particular, the findings emphasise the importance of inclusive communication, accessible governance models, and simplified regulatory frameworks in supporting the wider and more equitable uptake of energy communities across Europe.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the existing literature on barriers and adopters’ typologies in clean energy diffusion. Section 3 presents the methodology, including the survey and interview designs. Section 4 and Section 5 present and discuss the results, and the final section concludes the paper.

2. Overview of Existing Research on Barriers and Adopter Categories in Clean Energy Diffusion

A growing body of research has explored the barriers to renewable energy adoption, including those specific to community-led initiatives such as CECs. These models are gaining ground in Europe. However, their empirical uptake remains limited, often hampered by legal, financial, organisational, and informational barriers [8,20,21,22]. Studies highlight that national contexts vary widely in terms of policy support, funding mechanisms, and regulatory clarity, contributing to inconsistent patterns of uptake across Europe [5,23]. For example, work by Yiasoumas et al. [23] outlines how technical barriers, data challenges, and regulatory fragmentation can make citizen participation in energy communities difficult, while Di Nucci et al. [5] highlight the difficulty of transferring successful models across different institutional settings. Similarly, Meitern [24], examining a Dutch pilot scheme operating under a national regulatory exemption, finds that even well-supported communities continue to face significant barriers, including administrative burden, financial risk, and limited scalability. These case studies reinforce the idea that local context, policy design, and institutional flexibility are central to the success or stagnation of community energy schemes. A PESTLE-based review (PESTLE is an abbreviation for an analysis that includes Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Legal and Environmental factors that influence an organisation) by Lazdins et al. [25] supports this view, showing that administrative burdens, financing difficulties, and limited institutional capacity are consistently reported across Northern and Western Europe. Their synthesis of the LECo project findings shows that even in high-income countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Ireland, participation in energy communities is hampered by low institutional support, weak heating integration, and gaps in technical expertise. Within the Baltic States, Estonia has more favourable payback periods for PV investments, but adoption is lagging due to weak metering systems and tariff structures.

While these studies provide detailed insights into national contexts, a broader pattern of cross-country variation is evident in the literature. To illustrate this landscape,

Table 1. Country-specific barriers to CEC participation and related support mechanisms ¹.

Country	Key Barriers Identified in the Literature	Incentives/Support Mentioned	Sources
Germany	Legal complexity, grid connection bureaucracy, lack of authority support, financing barriers	Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs), RES cooperatives	Di Nucci et al. [5]
Italy	Scepticism, low awareness, financial uncertainty, eco-gentrification	Municipal and regional incentives	De Franco et al. [11]
The Netherlands	High administrative burden, unclear regulatory roles, split incentives, scalability issues, financial viability risk	Net metering, zip code regulation, regulatory exemption pilot	Meitern [24], Di Nucci et al. [5]
Sweden	Shift in adopter motivation, eco-gentrification in PV diffusion	PV subsidies noted in passing	Palm [26]
UK	Policy instability, modest awareness, trust concerns	FiT	UK cases reviewed in Brummer [6]

¹ Table includes only countries covered in both our empirical study and the peer-reviewed literature reviewed in this paper.

presents a selection of country-specific barriers to CEC participation and related incentive mechanisms, focusing exclusively on the countries included in our own empirical study. This focused synthesis is not intended as a systematic review, but rather as a contextual backdrop to our cross-country comparison. It highlights the range of institutional, informational, and economic challenges identified in these countries, as well as recurring themes in the existing literature.

Broad overviews of renewable energy development have consistently pointed to institutional rigidity, information asymmetries, and market failures as persistent barriers to uptake [27], though few have explored how such barriers are perceived by different actor groups operating within a shared EU policy framework. Within this broader landscape, research has typically categorised barriers into three main domains: institutional, technological, and socio-economic [24]. Institutional barriers often involve ambiguous regulations, unclear organisational structures, or policy constraints; technical barriers relate to knowledge gaps and challenges in project planning and implementation; and socio-economic barriers include high initial costs and financial uncertainties about return on investment [6,24]. Other commonly mentioned challenges include weak local engagement, administrative burdens, and low levels of trust among stakeholders [4,11]. Some studies also highlight a lack of willingness to participate in community-based initiatives, particularly in solar communities [8]. Eleftheriadis and Anagnostopoulou [21] provide a highly instructive case for understanding how structural, institutional, and legitimation barriers jointly shape the uptake of renewable energy in Greece. They identify a mix of resource, infrastructure, and socio-political constraints that have hindered the diffusion of wind and solar power, including unstable feed-in tariff systems, permitting delays, spatial planning gaps, and local community opposition. Their findings underscore the importance of stable regulatory frameworks and well-coordinated spatial and financial planning, particularly for countries in economic transition.

Studies such as Brummer [6] and Thakur and Wilson [8] have sought to organise these barriers into coherent frameworks, showing how legal, financial, and socio-technical conditions interact to shape the landscape of CEC development. Brummer [6] offers one of the most comprehensive classifications of barriers to community energy, outlining six dimensions that include regulatory and planning challenges, market barriers, institutional gaps, scepticism, resource constraints, and engagement fatigue. These categories correspond closely to those identified by Thakur and Wilson [8], who highlight how regulatory uncertainty, market dominance by large actors, and limited financial and technical support undermine citizen-led initiatives. Their work also highlights how psychological and behavioural elements—such as risk aversion, low awareness, or doubts about environmental efficacy—further complicate adoption. Taken together, these studies highlight the multifaceted nature of barriers to CECs and point to the importance of integrating structural and individual perspectives.

Beyond institutional and technical factors, a growing body of research has begun to explore how individuals perceive barriers to participation in energy communities [12]. These perceptions are often shaped by personal experience, awareness, and trust, as well as by socio-economic position and cultural context [9,28]. For instance, De Franco et al. [15] found that even among sustainability-aware citizens in Italy, scepticism remained about the impact of individual contributions and the long-term viability of community-based schemes. Similarly, Palm [26] observed that motivations for adopting residential PV systems in Sweden shifted over time; early adopters were often driven by environmental concern, while later adopters placed more weight on financial returns and clarity of incentives. These findings highlight that perceived barriers are not only about feasibility, but also about efficacy and motivation—whether people believe their participation matters or is worth the effort.

Several studies have also drawn attention to equity-related concerns. Boostani et al. [9] argue that unless supported by inclusive policies and accessible funding mechanisms, energy communities risk reinforcing inequalities by favouring those with more resources, confidence, or information. Similarly, Otte et al. [28] show that even in policy-supported environments, economic exclusion, data complexity, and affordability concerns continue to prevent meaningful participation by low-income groups. These findings suggest that perceived barriers vary not only according to individual awareness or attitudes, but also according to structural and distributional inequalities—issues that are particularly relevant to the design of inclusive CEC strategies.

These insights resonate with Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory [10], which offers a useful lens for understanding how perceptions and motivations evolve over time. Rogers’ diffusion of innovations framework categorises adopters based on their socio-economic characteristics, attitudes towards innovation, and preferred information channels. Early adopters tend to be more motivated by innovation itself, willing to take risks and experiment with new technologies despite potential uncertainties. In contrast, later adopters are often more sceptical and prudent, requiring stronger or different incentives and clearer evidence of success, institutional stability, and peer validation before committing to innovation. This dynamic is evident in studies such as Faiers and Neame [18], who found clear differences in how early adopters and the early majority evaluated solar power systems in the UK. While both groups recognised the environmental benefits, the early majority were put off by perceived affordability, aesthetics, and inadequate subsidy levels—characteristics that contributed to a clear ”adoption gap”. Furthermore, Ruokamo et al.’s [17] study, for example, found that early-stage solar PV adopters in Finland were driven more by the environmental values and user experience, while later adopters prioritised cost, incentives, and simplicity. Such differences underscore the importance of understanding perceived barriers through the lens of adopter stage—not only to explain diffusion patterns, but also to inform tailored strategies that reduce hesitation and build trust.

Much of the existing research has focused on systemic and institutional barriers to energy community development, while fewer studies have addressed the role of individual perceptions in shaping participation. Yet research on innovation diffusion and consumer behaviour consistently shows that subjective perceptions—such as perceived efficacy, risk, and effort—can be just as influential as structural factors [18,29]. Even within the growing field of community energy, studies that explicitly compare perceived barriers across different adopter groups remain limited. Those that do, such as Ruokamo et al. [17] and Palm [26], indicate that motivations, concerns, and trust levels vary significantly between early adopters and the general public.

This study contributes to filling this gap by comparing the perceived barriers of two different groups—early adopters (current CEC members) and potential adopters (the general public)—in six European countries. In doing so, it responds to calls for greater attention to the psychological and social dimensions of energy participation [11], and to the equity challenges of citizen engagement [9]. While previous studies such as Faiers and Neame [18] have shown that perceptions at the adopter stage can significantly influence technology uptake, our work extends this insight to the more complex domain of CECs, which involve collective governance, shared investment, and institutional interaction. Building on Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory, we explore how motivations and concerns differ at different stages of adoption, and how these differences reflect broader patterns of awareness, trust, and perceived risk. This perspective allows for a deeper understanding of the adoption process and can inform policy and outreach strategies that are better aligned with the expectations and realities of different participant groups.

3. Methodology

This study draws on two datasets to examine barriers and motivations for participation in CECs: (1) a qualitative study with members and (2) a citizen survey, both conducted as part of the NEWCOMERS project in six countries (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, and the UK). These datasets provide insights from both active participants in CECs and the general public, providing a broader understanding of adoption dynamics. Although the datasets were developed independently and differ in design and question wording, they are brought into an interpretive dialogue to identify convergences and divergences in perceived barriers. Rather than aiming for direct comparison, this complementary approach allows for a richer, multi-perspective understanding of the diffusion of clean energy in communities. De Franco et al. [11] took a similar approach combining survey data with participatory workshops to explore local motivations, perceived barriers, and engagement dynamics in the formation of energy communities in Italy.

3.1. Qualitative Study with CEC Members

The qualitative study involved 42 semi-structured interviews with CEC members in the six countries (see

Table 2. Sample size of CEC member study.

Country	Interviewees (Male/Female)
Germany	5 (5/0)
Italy	8 (4/4)
The Netherlands	13 (7/6)
Slovenia	4 (3/1)
Sweden	5 (2/3)
United Kingdom	7 (4/3)
Total	42

). The interviews were conducted between September and October 2020, both in person and online (via Zoom or Skype) due to COVID-19 restrictions. A structured guide with open-ended questions covered four themes: (1) background and involvement of CEC members; (2) knowledge and skills required for participation and the learning process; (3) barriers and incentives related to CEC membership; and (4) everyday life and social practices within the community. Interviews lasted around one hour and were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymised to ensure confidentiality. The interview data were analysed using MaxQDA 2020 software [30] and supplemented by manual coding based on translated transcripts and reports from local researchers.

The analysis followed an iterative open-coding procedure, where meaning units were assigned codes that were continuously refined. Codes with shared themes were then clustered into categories, leading to the identification of higher-level conceptual patterns [31].

3.2. Citizen Survey on CECs

The second dataset comes from a large-scale citizen survey conducted between 13 October and 14 December 2021 in the same six countries. Each national sample included 1500 respondents, except for the Netherlands (N = 1499 due to missing data). Stratified random sampling and quota controls ensured national representativeness.

The survey, developed collaboratively by the NEWCOMERS consortium, underwent multiple rounds of internal review [32]. To refine survey questions, a pre-test was conducted with 600 respondents from France, Germany, Poland, and the UK using the mingle platform (managed by respondi AG). Participants completed the survey in their national language. To minimise self-selection bias and prevent overrepresentation of subgroups, quotas for participants’ socioeconomic characteristics were set that represented the actual distribution of these characteristics in each country. Quotas for age, gender, and education were derived from Eurostat [33], while household income data were based on the European Social Survey [34] to ensure that the final sample was as representative as possible (see

Table 3. Sample characteristics of citizen survey.

Country	Sample Size	Mean Age	Gender (Male %)	Gender (Female %)	Below Upper Secondary Education (%)	Upper Secondary/Non-Tertiary Education (%)	Tertiary Education (%)
Germany	1500	45.79	50.53	49.47	19.53	54.47	26
Italy	1500	45.05	48.07	51.93	26.47	54.4	19.13
United Kingdom	1500	44.61	49.73	50.27	16	42.13	41.87
Sweden	1500	43.34	46.6	53.4	14.93	50.47	34.6
The Netherlands	1499	45.3	50.23	49.77	17.14	46.7	36.16
Slovenia	1500	44.93	51.8	48.2	3.93	66.73	29.33
Total	8999	44.84	49.49	50.51	16.34	52.48	31.18

for sample characteristics).

Although the interview and survey datasets were designed independently and are not conceptually aligned at the item level, we analyse them sequentially and then thematically side-by-side. Our aim is not to make direct statistical comparisons, but to explore overlapping and diverging perceptions through interpretive synthesis. This approach allows us to examine how perceived barriers differ between adopter groups in support of the two research questions of the study. An overview of the methodological design and the integration process of the two datasets is presented in Figure 1 below.

4. Results

To address our research questions, we first present findings on citizens’ awareness of the CEC concept, highlighting its importance as a starting point in the diffusion process. We then explore how current members perceive barriers to participation, followed by an analysis of the most reported barriers among citizens who are aware of the CEC concept and thus represent potential adopters.

4.1. Awareness of CECs’ Existence in the Studied Countries

We begin by examining public awareness of CECs, a crucial first step in the innovation adoption process. Awareness of communities remains low in all six countries surveyed. On average, only around 15% of citizens are familiar with the concept. The Netherlands stands out, with around 30% of respondents claiming awareness, while other countries report significantly lower levels—from 16.7% in Slovenia to just 12.5% in Germany.

Not surprisingly, low levels of awareness correspond to relatively modest levels of membership. Again, the Netherlands leads the way, with almost 9% of respondents claiming to be members of a CEC. In contrast, Italy has the lowest level of engagement, with less than 2% reporting membership. These percentages, shown in Figure 2, reflect the early stage of CEC diffusion in most of the countries studied.

From the perspective of diffusion of innovation theory [10], CECs appear to be in the early stages of adoption. In the Netherlands, where awareness is higher and membership is more widespread, the model is beginning to attract early adopters beyond the initial innovator stage. This suggests that wider uptake may be on the horizon. In countries such as Italy, Slovenia, and Germany, however, the concept is still relatively new, and engagement is largely limited to early-stage participants (Figure 3). This suggests significant room for growth but also underlines the importance of targeted awareness and engagement strategies.

4.1.1. CEC Members’ Perspective on Barriers to Joining or Starting CECs

From the interviews with CEC members in the studied countries, we identified five groups of barriers which participants saw as important in preventing other people from joining or starting such community: legislative-administrative barriers, financial barriers, managerial-social barriers, technological barriers, and knowledge-awareness barriers.

Legislative-administrative barriers. Legislative and administrative barriers, often referred to as red tape, are among the most common challenges faced by the CECs analysed. One member vividly described: “…the legislation kills you. And that whoever tries to do it, they will probably give up before reaching the end”. This quote highlights how these innovative models often struggle to align with existing rules and regulations across different countries. These barriers are primarily encountered at the institutional level—national, regional, and local—and to a lesser extent in relation to the regulation of energy utilities and, for site-based CECs, property management.

In many cases, legislation governing these communities is either non-existent or, where it does exist, is seen as outdated and inflexible. One member from the Netherlands noted, “Laws and regulations that must be followed at all times. It is a decelerating factor without a doubt”. National regulatory frameworks in the EU countries surveyed have yet to be adapted to new energy systems, making it difficult for communities to scale up. As one member mentioned, “I’ve been lobbying to put solar panels on the roof of our apartment block. But I ran into bureaucratic problems as the building is owned by a large housing corporation”.

Legislative barriers were identified in all the countries included in the study. However, this issue is particularly pronounced in early CEC markets, such as Italy and Slovenia, where in some cases there are no specific regulations for such communities at all. As one CEC member explained: “There are no suitable forms to fill”. In such situations, considerable improvisation—requiring goodwill and time from both community members and institutions—is necessary to make an energy community work.

Managerial-social barriers. For CEC members, reaching full consensus in starting and managing a project is a significant challenge that affects the decision-making process, often making it slow and complicated. The absence of a strict hierarchical structure can also impact the executive operations. This issue is especially relevant in initiatives where unanimous agreement is required to make whatever decision. As one member noted: “The biggest challenge was to get the 100% approval of all. There is always someone that is fully against it. You have to play a bit of the psychologist to lead this thing”.

One factor complicating consensus-building, particularly in some place-based CECs, is the heterogeneity of residents, which includes differences in age, education, socioeconomic status, and environmental awareness. As one member noted: “Because we are of different ages, different interests, it is hard to bring everyone together and convince them that it is good, because everyone has their own thinking”. This diversity can make it more difficult to align views and reach an agreement.

Moreover, when a community grows rapidly, its management structure may struggle to keep pace. A sudden increase in demand for membership—especially in virtual CECs—can present serious challenges to the organisation’s functionality. This can include difficulties in adapting the IT platform quickly and procuring and training new staff within a short timeframe. Additionally, some members noted challenges in effectively communicating the core benefits to potential new members. As one explained: “So, if… they’re just looking at their finances, it can take quite a lot of time to demonstrate to them that they can benefit, especially in the long term, with [CEC name]”.

Financial barriers. These barriers were frequently mentioned by members across the countries involved in the study, particularly the high initial investment costs associated with renewable energy projects. Many participants expressed concerns that these upfront costs are prohibitive for average households, making participation difficult. As one member noted, “There are costs, and not everyone can face them”.

Investors who typically join to secure financial returns are often deterred by the relatively low profitability of renewable energy sources (RESs). Unlike other high-return investments, RES projects generally do not offer significant financial gains. Therefore, those focused solely on profit may be reluctant to invest, preferring more lucrative alternatives. However, these communities may appeal to individuals who value environmental benefits over immediate financial returns, as one member highlighted: “The energy turnaround is my driving force”, underscoring the importance of non-financial motivations in some cases.

In some well-established, place-based communities with long histories, the demand for high-quality living in environmentally sustainable communities has driven up property prices, making these areas increasingly unaffordable for lower-income households. This trend has led to eco-gentrification, where participation becomes accessible mainly to upper-middle-class, eco-conscious individuals. As one respondent remarked, “it’s pretty much like western middle-class living out there”.

The relatively low return on investment was also raised as a concern. Members felt that the unclear relationship between costs and benefits could discourage others from joining. One member commented, “Most people stop at the economic aspect, and from an economic point of view, it is not actually convenient to make a photovoltaic system”. This view highlights the perception that, while the environmental and social benefits are important, the financial incentives may not be strong enough to justify the initial investment for many potential members.

Knowledge-awareness barriers. These barriers were also commonly reported, as many potential members may not be aware of the existence of energy communities or the benefits they offer. Across the countries studied, participants noted that the advantages of joining—both personal and communal—are not well communicated, leading to misconceptions about how CECs operate. For example, some believe participation requires a lot of personal time or that the technology is too complex. One member observed, “Some people think the technology is too complicated, which can deter them”. Similarly, unfamiliarity with how these systems work was cited as barrier, as expressed in the remark, “At first, it’s not easy to approach these systems because they are unfamiliar to many”.

Moreover, a general lack of environmental education and understanding of energy transition issues, was perceived to further restrict public interest. One participant noted, “The main obstacle to establishing a CEC is the ‘head of the people.’ People argue endlessly about renewable energies online”. Some also assumed that participation required a significant time commitment, as one member remarked: “Some people aren’t interested in spending five minutes a day to track their energy usage”.

The uneven distribution of environmental awareness means these initiatives are often more appealing to upper-middle-class individuals, further limiting their inclusivity, as the following quote illustrates: “It’s been interesting to see people who aren’t your usual middle-class ‘greenies’ get involved. We need more of that”. Expanding outreach to a broader range of people might help gradually overcome these knowledge-related barriers.

A further challenge is misinformation, particularly in media portrayals of clean energy technologies such as smart meters or solar panels. Negative coverage fuels scepticism and discourages public interest. One respondent commented, “There seems to have been a concerted attempt in the media to turn people away from smart meters”. Mediated disinformation continues to hamper clean energy adoption across countries.

Finally, rapid community growth and resident turnover can disrupt shared understanding. In place-based models, new residents may not be environmentally conscious or involved in community operations, which can weaken internal cohesion. One member stressed a problem regarding CEC entrance criteria: “We don’t have a screening process. It’s up to the real estate agents and sellers”.

4.1.2. Barriers to Joining CECs as Perceived by the General Public Across Countries

A comparison of citizens’ perceived barriers across the surveyed countries (Figure 4) reveals both common trends and country-specific distinctions. The most striking finding is that a lack of awareness about the existence of CECs is a widespread issue across all countries, with the Netherlands being the exception. In most countries, around 60% of respondents reported not knowing of any such initiative, whereas this figure drops to just 30% in the Netherlands.

Beyond awareness, knowledge and skills emerge as the second most common barrier, particularly in Germany, where nearly half of respondents said that a perceived lack of expertise would hinder their participation. Financial constraints form the third most common challenge, with this issue raised most often by respondents in Slovenia, followed closely by Germany and Italy.

Interestingly, a lack of time is not perceived as a major obstacle overall, although it seems to be slightly more relevant in Sweden and the UK than in other countries. Meanwhile, trust in neighbours is not a major concern for most citizens, although a small proportion—just over 10%—in the UK, Italy, and Germany reported it as a potential barrier to joining.

Citizens’ satisfaction with existing energy systems also varies considerably by country. Respondents in the Netherlands were the most satisfied, while dissatisfaction was highest in Italy, followed by Slovenia and the UK. These findings suggest that while awareness and knowledge gaps are universal challenges, financial concerns and trust issues may be more context-specific and highlight the need for more tailored approaches to promote wider participation.

4.1.3. Comparison of Barriers Identified by CEC Members and the Potential Adopters of Clean Energy

The barriers identified by current members and the general public indicate both shared concerns and key differences in how early adopters and potential adopters perceive obstacles to participation in energy communities.

A lack of awareness, knowledge, and skills emerged as a central issue in both datasets—regardless of whether the respondent was already a member or a potential adopter, and irrespective of national context. Members frequently highlighted the difficulty of attracting new participants due to limited public knowledge of the benefits and practical functioning of such initiatives. This aligns with the survey findings, where lack of awareness was the most frequently cited barrier to joining. Notably, the Netherlands stood out for its higher levels of awareness, with only 30% of citizens citing this barrier, compared to around 60% elsewhere.

Financial concerns were widely recognised as a barrier across both datasets, although with different emphases. Members often cited high upfront costs and relatively low returns on investment as key deterrents. In contrast, survey respondents more frequently referred to affordability and household finances, particularly in Slovenia, Germany, and Italy.

It is worth noting that members often reflected on both joining and starting CECs, whereas the survey focused solely on barriers to joining. This difference likely accounts for the greater emphasis on administrative and managerial complexity in the interviews. Perceptions of the expertise required also differed, with members highlighting the complexity of managing a project or navigating the regulations, while potential adopters—particularly in Germany—expressed concern that they lacked the technical knowledge required to participate.

Bureaucratic and regulatory barriers were a recurring theme in the interviews, with several members pointing to outdated or ill-adapted legislation as a major obstacle. Meanwhile, trust in neighbours emerged as a slightly greater concern for potential adopters among the general public. While members had typically already built trust within their communities, potential participants seemed more hesitant to rely on others in a shared energy arrangement.

Finally, perceptions of time differed between groups. While the general public did not widely consider time as a barrier, except in Sweden and the UK, members frequently mentioned the time and effort required to build consensus and manage community decision-making, especially in cooperatives with flat hierarchies.

To summarise the findings from both datasets,

Table 4. Summary of barriers by country (survey + interviews).

Country	Survey: Top Perceived Barriers	Interviews: Key Themes
Germany	Lack of awareness; lack of knowledge/skills (47%); financial constraints; moderate trust concerns	Legislative barriers; high perceived complexity; financial viability issues; low awareness
Italy	Lack of awareness; financial constraints; dissatisfaction with current system; moderate trust concerns	Lack of regulation; administrative red tape; low awareness; eco-gentrification; financial burden
The Netherlands	Relatively high awareness (30%); satisfaction with current system; low trust concerns	Regulatory barriers; red tape; difficulty scaling; awareness issues; financial expectations
Slovenia	Lack of awareness (~60%); high financial concern; moderate dissatisfaction with energy system	Lack of legal frameworks; heavy improvisation; awareness/education gaps; affordability
Sweden	Lack of awareness; minor concern about time; low trust concern	Time commitment; internal consensus challenges; awareness challenges
UK	Lack of awareness; some time constraints; dissatisfaction with current system; slight trust concern	Consensus building; management challenges; media misinformation; time demands

summarises the most prominent perceived barriers to participation in CECs by country. The table reflects the patterns observed in both the citizen survey and the interviews with current members. While not exhaustive, it highlights the recurring and distinctive concerns raised in each national context and provides a comparative snapshot of adoption challenges across the six countries studied.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of Findings and Implications for Policy and Practice

This study provides new insight into the barriers to participation in CECs, comparing the perspectives of early adopters (current members) and potential adopters (the general public). By integrating qualitative interviews with members and a large-scale survey public survey across six European countries, the findings contribute to broader debates on clean energy diffusion and the social dynamics of innovation adoption.

A key finding is the widespread lack of public awareness, which significantly hampers broader CEC uptake. According to Rogers [10], awareness is a critical precondition for adoption, and without it, individuals are excluded from the innovation-decision process altogether. On average, only 15% of citizens in the countries surveyed were aware of energy communities. The Netherlands stands out with the highest awareness at 30%, while awareness in Germany, Slovenia, and Italy is much lower, ranging from 12.5% to 16.7%. These patterns suggest that higher uptake is not only a function of awareness, but also enabling conditions, such as mature policies, supportive regulations, and peer networks. This reinforces insights from Meitern [24], who showed that structural context and awareness often co-evolve and mutually reinforce early adoption.

Early adopters in our study emphasised systemic and structural barriers—particularly bureaucratic inefficiencies and outdated regulations—which tend to become visible only after joining. These obstacles are largely invisible to the general public, but they are central to scaling up participation. Similar issues were highlighted by Di Nucci et al. [5], and our findings confirm that complexity and inflexible legal frameworks continue to constrain expansion, especially in less mature policy environments such as Italy and Slovenia.

In contrast to current members, potential adopters were more concerned with lack of awareness, trust, and perceived complexity. This aligns with Rogers’ [10] diffusion model, which suggests that mainstream adopters need clearer communication and stronger incentives to overcome their reluctance. Addressing these knowledge gaps and trust issues is critical for reaching a broader base of participants. These dynamics echo Palm’s [26] findings that motivations and barriers shift as innovation diffuses towards the mainstream.

Financial concerns emerged in both datasets, but with different emphases. While members identified high upfront costs and modest returns as barriers to project development, potential adopters primarily viewed participation through the lens of household affordability and risk. These findings resonate with those of Boostani et al. [9], who emphasised the importance of addressing affordability concerns and perceived risks—particularly among later adopters with limited financial flexibility or energy awareness.

A related finding concerns unfamiliarity with the community-based nature of energy sharing initiatives. Potential participants were often unsure of how these projects worked or what was required of them. This gap reflects the need for targeted, practical communication strategies that make participation more accessible and translate complex energy models into simple, everyday language.

Many of the early adopters in our sample saw themselves as both participants and informal educators and advocates. Their lived experience offers valuable insights into the barriers that others may face when navigating complex legal and regulatory frameworks, for example. To foster broader engagement, we suggest a two-pronged approach: first, address systemic issues such as regulatory ambiguity and administrative burdens; second, recognise and support early adopters as potential peer mentors, advocates, and local ambassadors. Their practical knowledge, capacity for building trust, and visibility within communities can help to dispel doubts and stimulate wider interest.

In addition to addressing awareness and trust, systemic and structural changes are needed to enable wider participation. Legal recognition and institutional support for CECs at national and local level remains inconsistent. Many members reported that negative experiences with bureaucracy and administrative complexity discourage potential new members. This reflects ongoing institutional inertia [11], and highlights the need for streamlined procedures and legal pathways for establishing and joining these initiatives. Policy instruments such as tenant support schemes or rules on shared ownership in multi-residential buildings could reduce barriers to entry and send a strong signal of government commitment to the energy transition and reduce entry barriers.

The perceived lack of knowledge and skills needed was another recurring barrier. Here, CECs themselves may serve as valuable knowledge hubs [35]. Encouraging knowledge sharing through peer mentoring, local workshops, or supported ambassador programmes could help bridge the skills gap and support more inclusive participation. Formal support for such grassroots knowledge dissemination would strengthen the capacity of CECs to contribute to social learning—an essential part of building more inclusive participation, as also suggested by Ruokamo et al. [17].

Participatory governance is often seen as a way to increase inclusion and sustainability, but our findings suggest this may not always be the case. Interviewees noted challenges with flat hierarchies, such as lengthy decision-making processes, consensus fatigue, and difficulty engaging diverse groups. These barriers indicate that without proper institutional support, participatory models might unintentionally create exclusion or limit scalability, especially in larger, more diverse communities.

Equity concerns also emerged strongly in both datasets. Our findings suggest that energy communities risk becoming disproportionately accessible to environmentally engaged, higher income groups—particularly in more mature markets such as Sweden. This aligns with concerns raised by Boostani et al. [9], who found that community energy schemes often unintentionally exclude vulnerable groups due to barriers such as investment requirements, limited awareness, and procedural complexity. To address these challenges, inclusion strategies must extend beyond financial subsidies to incorporate culturally sensitive outreach, simplified and transparent participation processes, and targeted efforts to engage renters, migrants, and lower-income households.

Although our findings reflect individual perceptions, they must be interpreted within the context of the broader policy and regulatory environments. As outlined in Appendix A 

Table A1. National regulations, institutional conditions, incentives and systemic barriers for CECs in the European countries included in this study.

Country	Legal Framework for CECs	Support Mechanisms/Incentives	Key Systemic Barriers Identified
Germany	Legal frameworks exist; cooperative law facilitates CEC formation	FiT, smart meter act, feed-in premiums, cooperative law	Complex legislation, high grid connection cost, administrative burden
Italy	Law n.8/2020 introduces legal framework for RECs (Renewable Energy Community)	Municipal/regional incentives, FiT for RECs, tax credits	Low awareness, scepticism, outdated legislation, eco-gentrification
The Netherlands	Legal framework for renewable electricity production and CECs	SDE+, postal code scheme, tax deduction for community energy	Administrative burden, unclear regulatory roles, scalability
Slovenia	REC defined in recent by-law	Net metering, FiT/premium tariffs, operational support	Small market, limited resources, unclear roles, no umbrella org.
Sweden	No specific legal framework for CECs	Tradable green certificates, tax deductions, infrastructure subsidies	No EC definition, lack of specific support, low institutional focus
UK	CEC defined in national strategy; early strategy in place	Former FiT, community energy funds, R&D support programs	Policy instability, diminishing support, reliance on volunteers

[36], the six countries studied differ significantly in terms of institutional maturity, available incentives, and governance models. These contextual differences not only shape the structural opportunities for participation, but also public expectations and perceptions of relevance. For example, in countries where citizens were highly satisfied with existing energy services, there may be less urgency to engage with alternative models, such as CECs.

These contextual dynamics are also reflected in recent empirical research. For example, Musolino et al. [37] examined how concerns about energy justice and socio-economic inequalities influenced community energy initiatives in three contrasting Italian case studies. In a comparative study of the Baltic Sea region, Ruggiero et al. [38] emphasised the importance of participatory governance and institutional alignment in fostering engagement. De Franco et al. [11] used a combination of survey and workshop data to demonstrate the impact of communication gaps and place-based motivations on participation in emerging energy communities in Italy. Together, these cases support and extend our findings by showing how structural and social contexts interact to shape public participation in energy communities—whether by raising awareness, encouraging people to join, or promoting active involvement.

At the same time, the European energy landscape has changed considerably since our data were collected. The war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy price shocks have intensified concerns about energy security and may be shifting public attitudes towards decentralised, renewable systems. Such external disruptions can rapidly alter the importance of perceived barriers and motivations, highlighting the dynamic nature of public engagement with clean energy transitions.

5.2. Study Contributions

This study makes several key contributions to the literature on the diffusion of clean energy. Firstly, it provides a comparative analysis of the perceived barriers faced by different groups of adopters, offering insight into how motivations, concerns, and knowledge gaps change over time and with varying levels of engagement. This adopter-stage perspective remains under-explored in energy community research, but it helps to explain why early enthusiasm does not always translate into broader participation.

Secondly, the study draws on two independently developed empirical components: a qualitative interview study and a cross-national representative survey. Together, these components enable a broader synthesis of adoption dynamics than would be possible with a single-method approach. This mixed-methods approach enables us to capture both lived experience and public perception across diverse policy environments.

Thirdly, the findings emphasise the significant role of early adopters in facilitating broader community energy uptake, both through their own participation and as intermediaries and advocates. When supported by appropriate institutional frameworks, these individuals can help to lower social and informational barriers, thereby extending the reach of community energy initiatives beyond niche groups.

Finally, by situating these insights within a comparative, multi-country context, the study informs ongoing policy discussions about scaling up energy community participation in a socially inclusive and context-sensitive manner. It provides a basis for developing more targeted strategies that take into account national regulatory environments, adopter diversity, and the evolving energy landscape in Europe.

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

At the same time, the study has limitations, particularly the lack of integration between the qualitative and quantitative phases of research. The qualitative and quantitative datasets were developed separately and differ in their theoretical framing and item wording. While this limits direct comparability, the interpretive synthesis we present allows for meaningful insights into perceptual divergences. The survey remains descriptive in nature and could be extended with more in-depth statistical modelling. In addition, national differences in policy maturity and cultural context make direct cross-country comparisons difficult. Future research could group countries by adoption stage (e.g., emerging vs. mature markets) and explore more targeted comparisons, ideally complemented by in-depth case studies. Furthermore, although the survey used stratified random sampling and quotas based on Eurostat and ESS benchmarks, it did not include quotas for other factors that could influence perceptions and participation. Future studies could benefit from incorporating more nuanced stratification to improve the robustness of comparative insights.

Future research should also examine how evolving geopolitical and economic conditions influence participation in clean energy. External shocks, such as war, inflation, and climate events, can reshape public perceptions of risks and benefits, thereby affecting motivation in ways that static analysis does not capture. Longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional designs would enable researchers to track shifts in engagement barriers and drivers over time, helping to inform more responsive and adaptive policy frameworks.

6. Conclusions

This study offers a comprehensive examination of the perceived barriers to participation in CECs, drawing on perspectives from both early adopters and the general public across six European countries. By combining qualitative and quantitative insights, we provide a nuanced understanding of how perceived barriers differ between adopter groups and across national contexts, contributing to the broader literature on energy transitions and the diffusion of innovation. Our findings confirm that in the countries studied, energy communities remain in the early stages of adoption, attracting primarily innovators and early adopters.

The results highlight the critical role of awareness in enabling engagement. Many citizens remain excluded from the adoption process simply due to limited familiarity of the concept. Meanwhile, those already involved point to structural and regulatory challenges that become visible post-adoption—insights that are essential for long-term scalability of CECs. Across both groups, financial concerns, trust deficits, and perceived complexity persist as key barriers, particularly among mainstream adopters.

To address these challenges, a dual strategy is needed: one that simultaneously tackles systemic barriers—through regulatory reform, legal recognition, and institutional support—and strengthens targeted communication to improve public understanding and motivation. Early adopters can play an important role as intermediaries in this process, acting as peer educators and trusted messengers who help translate niche innovation into mainstream practice.

Our findings also point to broader contextual factors, such as satisfaction with the existing energy system and socio-economic inequalities, which shape the landscape of adoption. As energy prices and security concerns evolve in the wake of geopolitical shifts, these dynamics are likely to change, offering new opportunities or barriers to accelerate interest in community-based renewable energy solutions.

Ultimately, fostering inclusive participation in CECs will require both structural change and strategic communication, informed by the lived experiences of citizens. Supporting both current and prospective participants through targeted, context-sensitive interventions is essential to unlocking the full democratic and decarbonising potential of CECs in Europe’s clean energy transition.