Next Article in Journal
Addressing the Impact of Complex English Use in Communicating Climate Change in Nigerian Communities Through Contextual Understanding
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term and Seasonal Analysis of Storm-Wave Events in the Gulf of California
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Climate
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/cli13030055
climate-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Communities: The Role of Socio-Political Control and Impure Altruism

by
Marialuisa Menegatto
,
Andrea Bobbio
,
Gloria Freschi
and
Adriano Zamperini
*
Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2025, 13(3), 55; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030055
Submission received: 15 December 2024 / Revised: 10 February 2025 / Accepted: 2 March 2025 / Published: 6 March 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The ever-worsening climate crisis necessitates a shift toward sustainable energy systems that prioritise citizen participation. Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) present a unique opportunity to enhance local resilience, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster climate mitigation and adaptation through participatory governance. This exploratory study investigates the psychosocial predictors of social acceptance for RECs, with a focus on Socio-political Control and Warm-glow Motivation as key determinants. To this end, we collected 107 questionnaires completed by residents of the metropolitan city of Padua, which is engaged in the EU’s 100 Climate-Neutral Cities by 2030 mission. The results indicate a generally favourable attitude toward RECs and reveal that Socio-political Control, defined as the perceived ability to influence societal and political systems, positively predicts community energy acceptance. Furthermore, Impure Altruism (Warm-glow Motivation) mediates this relationship, underscoring the importance of intrinsic emotional rewards in fostering support for sustainable energy projects. These findings highlight the interplay between individual agency and emotional satisfaction in promoting energy transitions. This study underscores the need for participatory governance and tailored communication strategies to enhance public engagement with RECs. Limitations and avenues for future research are discussed, emphasising the need for broader cross-cultural investigations and experimental designs.

1. Introduction

The ever-worsening climate crisis represents a serious and pervasive problem threatening the stability of ecosystems, economies, human health, and well-being from the local to the global scale [1]. As extensively documented by the scientific community, the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel-based human activities is considered the most impactful driver of global climate change [2,3]. Hence, there is a need to tackle the mitigation challenge, i.e., reducing GHG emissions by approaching the transition from a fossil-reliant society to a clean and circular economy, leveraging the full potential of renewable energy sources [2].
In line with the goal set by the 2015 Paris Agreement, to keep the average global temperature increase within a limit of 2 or preferably 1.5 °C [4], the RED II Directive (2018/2001), as part of the Clean Energy Package of the European Union [5], has urged member states to undertake concrete actions aimed at transforming Europe into a global leader in various renewable energy sectors. In particular, by 2030, renewable sources—such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass—should reach 32% of total European energy consumption [5]. The EU’s 100 Climate-Neutral Cities by 2030 mission provides funding, guidance, and support to cities like Padua. This initiative is part of the European Green Deal, which sets ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering economic growth through green technology and sustainable solutions [3].
In this regard, research has shown that, besides normative and financial instruments, successful energy transition requires community members’ extended and effective participation as prosumers and the implementation of co-creation strategies [6,7,8].

1.1. Energy Communities

In this landscape, various initiatives for collective energy self-production and community energy consumption have begun to emerge globally with some success in Europe [9]. One notable example of such an initiative are Energy Communities (ECs), which generally intend, in innovative and collaborative ways, to produce, consume, and manage renewable energy, usually initiated by local community members, with the potential to generate social, economic, and environmental benefits, including energy transition and sociotechnical innovation [10,11,12]. This initiative fits into an open and democratic governance model that emphasises local ownership and democratic decision-making, empowering its members to acquire a proactive role throughout the energy management process [13,14]. The involved citizens develop the capacity to change their life context, improving their quality of life and fostering the shift from top-down to bottom-up and co-productive approaches to energy governance [7,15,16], thus reaching the ideal co-responsibility between authorities and people, a cornerstone of what has been called energy citizenship [17,18]. Transforming the energy transition into collective action through community engagement, ECs provide new opportunities to create local systems which generate value both for the whole energy system and the planet, as well as end-users [19]. In addition, they offer fresh opportunities for residents and communities by placing them in the heart of the energy system. By fostering collective action, ECs address climate adaptation and mitigation simultaneously, promoting energy justice and sustainability. By decentralising energy systems, ECs reduce dependence on vulnerable centralised grids, which are increasingly at risk from extreme weather events such as floods, hurricanes, and heatwaves [20].
In Europe, ECs are normatively recognised by the European Commission with the name Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) [5,21] under the RED II Directive. The directive defines them as legal entities involved in any stage of the energy supply chain, characterised by voluntary participation, autonomy, and management by stakeholders or members located near the production facilities owned and operated by the community. Rather than prioritising financial profit, their primary objective is to deliver environmental, economic, or social benefits to their members, stakeholders, and local communities. [5,21]. Members or shareholders of the community may be individuals, small- and medium-sized enterprises, local authorities, or municipal governments. In compliance with European regulations, Italian authorities have introduced and regulated RECs through a series of decrees [22,23,24,25].
RECs have significant potential to contribute to the energy transition, supporting the shift towards more sustainable and decentralised energy systems and thus fostering climate mitigation and adaptation; however, the success of these community initiatives varies significantly from state to state, even within the same country. The social acceptance of projects involving renewable sources has emerged as a key factor in activating motivation to join an Energy Community [26]. The acceptance, support, and participation of citizens is essential to manage these ongoing energy transitions successfully [27].

1.2. Social Acceptance

The issue of acceptability and acceptance by local communities is regarded as pivotal for the success and fulfilment of renewable energy projects including Energy Communities [28,29]. Social acceptance of RECs is important for achieving climate neutrality targets outlined in the European Union’s Mission on Climate-Neutral Cities, aligning local actions with global climate governance frameworks like Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); in particular, SDGs 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, 13: Climate Action, and 17: Partnerships for the Goals [16,30].
The concept of social acceptance has undergone significant theoretical refinement since its early application in renewable energy research. Initially, it has emerged as a response to public resistance against large-scale energy infrastructures, particularly wind energy projects and bioenergy plants, which face opposition due to their aesthetic, environmental, and land-use impacts [31,32]. However, over time, scholars have recognised that social acceptance is not merely about avoiding resistance, but about actively fostering conditions that enable the successful adoption of energy innovations. Busse and Siebert (2018) argue that acceptance should not be viewed as a binary outcome (support vs. resistance), but rather as a dynamic and multi-layered process which evolves over time and is shaped by interactions between individual perceptions, institutional settings (policy frameworks, incentives, and social norms), and collective narratives [33]. This distinction is particularly relevant for RECs, as their slow expansion is not due to explicit public opposition, but rather due to unclear regulatory environments, limited financial incentives, and gaps in public awareness and participation. Trying to navigate the terminological vagueness that dominates this conceptual area [33], we adopted the definition of social acceptance of energy systems proposed by Upham and colleagues: “a favourable or positive response (including attitude, intention, behaviour and—where appropriate—use) relating to a proposed or in situ technology or socio-technical system, by members of a given social unit (country or region, community or town and household, organisation)” [34] (p. 103). Thus, in line with Bonaiuto and colleagues (2024), we acknowledge that social acceptance implies the intention to perform a certain behaviour or action—purchase, participation, or utilisation—in the context of sustainable energy initiatives, beyond a mere positive attitude (acceptability) toward it [29].
According to the model by Wüstenhagen, Wolsink, and Bürer [32], the concept of social acceptance can be organised into the following three dimensions:
  • Socio-political Acceptance: The general support of institutional actors and relevant stakeholders via enabling institutional frameworks, policies, and financial instruments.
  • Community Acceptance: The acceptance of local policymakers, stakeholders, and citizens directly involved in and affected by energy projects.
  • Market Acceptance: The willingness of businesses and consumers to adopt and invest in renewable energy projects.
More recently, Brambati et al. (2022) introduced a fourth dimension of social acceptance relevant in the context of renewable energy projects—the individual dimension—which encompasses motivational, affective, cognitive, and relational factors [35].
General socio-political support toward renewable energy projects does not necessarily lead to a community and subjective proactive intention to take part; there is a social and individual gap in the process of public acceptance [36]. In the context of RECs, social acceptance is a question of social legitimacy, engagement, and active participation. RECs operate under a particular set of socio-political and psychological factors, such as lack of perceived agency, economic feasibility, procedural clarity, institutional inertia, and regulatory fragmentation, all of which can hinder their expansion [37]. Thus, RECs require a nuanced understanding of what drives acceptance and engagement, the conditions under which communities feel empowered to participate, and the barriers that need to be overcome to achieve widespread adoption.

2. Psychosocial Factors Influencing Acceptance

Numerous factors might influence the way citizens participate in local energy systems [26] and, consequently, contribute to their success or failure. Considering this, attempts have been made to identify and sort out the predicting factors of renewable energy acceptance on different scales, encompassing psychological, social, contextual, and process-related factors, e.g., [38,39,40].
Some relevant drivers of citizens’ intention to participate in such initiatives identified by the psychosocial literature are social norms and interpersonal and social trust [37,41,42,43]. For instance, Goedkoop and Devine-Wright (2016) highlighted that relationships of trust between company stakeholders and community actors were critical to developing shared ownership of renewable energy projects [44]. Social representations [45,46] and social identities [18,47] have been advanced as important constructs and useful interpretative lenses to understand the process of engagement and participation in RECs. Moreover, the quality and structure of interpersonal relationships in the community may influence a member’s intention to participate in a REC initiative [48]. Some studies have highlighted the influence of community factors—such as community identification, interpersonal contact, and social norms—on involvement in energy projects, complementing the role of individual sustainable motivations and attitudes [48,49].
Other relevant factors are inherent to procedural and distributive justice, i.e., the perception of fair and inclusive procedures and decision-making and the balanced distribution of costs and benefits [37,50,51]. Segreto and colleagues (2020) argued that transparent communication processes and citizen involvement in the planning phases are essential to building this mutual trust [37].

2.1. Socio-Political Control

A study of citizen participation in the energy transition context would gain significant insights by examining the influence of socio-political control, defined as the sense of mastery, control, and the perceived capacity to shape or influence policy decisions and institutional practises [52]. In the context of the socio-political dynamics of REC governance, this concept embodies the perceived empowerment of individuals and communities to shape local energy governance through advocacy, participation in policy-making, and direct involvement in energy initiatives. While no prior studies have specifically explored the relationship between Socio-political Control and the social acceptance of community energy projects, we think this investigation is warranted. Socio-political Control is considered a measure of self and participatory efficacy towards one’s local context [53,54] and community empowerment [55,56], which, in turn, could encourage support for and participation in collective initiatives such as RECs.
In line with research on collective action and social change, participatory efficacy beliefs—individuals’ perceptions of their capacity to effect change through collective efforts—have been shown to play a crucial role in motivating climate action [57,58]. Furthermore, psychosocial studies have demonstrated a positive association between perceived self-efficacy and sustainable energy behaviours across both private and public domains [59]. Research on decentralised energy systems indicates that community participation is higher when governance structures emphasise shared control and equity [60]. According to Ohmer (2010), while the positive impact of residents’ participation in local initiatives on their feelings of efficacy is well-documented, further research is needed to explore how perceived self and collective efficacy about local political contexts might influence the motivation to tackle complex community issues and initiative engagement [61]. This gap deserves further exploration, particularly given the global push for decentralised community-led energy transitions.
In the context of community energy projects, people who feel a greater sense of agency and efficacy in political matters and believe they have a meaningful role in decision-making processes may be more inclined to voice their opinions and concerns and actively engage in RECs, advocating for equitable energy policies and supporting the implementation of these initiatives by engaging with local authorities, businesses, and other stakeholders.

2.2. Impure Altruism

In the field of social and environmental psychology, some studies have put in the foreground the role of personal motivations in predicting the acceptance of renewable energy solutions that include RECs. Different motivation profiles supporting engagement in community-based energy projects have been illustrated [62,63]. For example, environmental attitudes were found to predict public acceptance of renewable energy community solutions [35,46,47]. Sloot and colleagues (2019) found that individual pro-environmental and communal motivations were positively related to community energy involvement [64]. Environmental concern was an important motivation factor for the intention to participate in community-based energy systems [35,65]. Environmental concern was also significantly associated with other predictors of acceptance such as social norms, trust, and community identity [41].
RECs have an intrinsic potential to produce both individual and collective benefits; this is why both personal and community-related factors may play a paramount role in promoting civic engagement and participation [15,40,48]. We argue that this double gain—personal and collective—can be traced back to the construct of Impure Altruism [66,67], according to which the decision to perform a certain behaviour can be driven by the chance to gain both private and social benefits, accompanied by feelings of personal satisfaction and pleasure (warm-glow feeling) linked with contributing to the well-being of society and the planet. This Warm-glow Motivation is widely leveraged in much pro-environmental research, e.g., [68,69], and was also shown to be a powerful means to promote renewable energy and energy-saving intention both for households and organisations [70,71,72,73]. Local efforts for emission reduction may be encouraged by local co-benefits of mitigation policies rather than by the altruistic desire to improve the global environment [74].
This psychological benefit was found to significantly increase the intention of consumers to purchase renewable energy [72], save energy in the workplace [73,75,76], and positively influence people’s attitudes toward solar energy citizenship [77]. Hoesch and colleagues (2024) showed a positive association between “warm glow” feelings and doing something positive for the planet and more equitable distributed benefits in community solar projects [78].
In the case of communal energy projects, Impure Altruism may emerge when individuals feel satisfied with contributing to collective sustainability efforts. The opportunity to experience this intrinsic reward may enhance support for community energy projects, as individuals derive personal fulfilment from their pro-social contribution. Warm-glow Motivation could also play a pivotal role in strengthening the effect of Socio-political Control on social acceptance by generating inner satisfaction and reward.

2.3. The Present Study: Aims and Hypotheses

Considering the recent literature on the importance of the active involvement of citizens for a successful energy transition and the need for decentralised community-led energy governance [6,7,8,60], the present study aims to identify the psychosocial determinants of the social acceptance of community energy projects and the possible relationships between them. We delve, above all, into the community level of social acceptance of RECs [32], trying to highlight some relevant psychosocial factors facilitating it, which we argue is an important chance to advance a climate-focused social psychology [79,80].
Considering the abovementioned literature on the topic, the following hypotheses have been formulated:
H1. 
Socio-political Control positively influences the Social Acceptance of community energy projects.
H2. 
Warm-glow Motivation (Impure Altruism) positively influences the social acceptance of community energy projects.
H3. 
Warm-glow Motivation (Impure Altruism) mediates the relationship between Socio-political Control and Community Energy Acceptance (Figure 1).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area: Padua Town the Climate Neutrality Programme and the Energy Communities

Padova, located in the Veneto region of northern Italy, has a rich cultural, historical, and academic heritage of over 200,000 residents. With its neighbouring municipalities, Padova reaches a population of 406,228 inhabitants, becoming the most populous urban area of the Veneto with a continuous and homogeneous urban agglomeration.
Known for its prestigious University of Padua, founded in 1222, it is one of the oldest universities in the world and a significant centre of learning, particularly famous for hosting Galileo Galilei. The university continues to attract students and researchers from around the world. According to the latest data, it is estimated that every year around 70,000 students attend the University, of which about 3000 are international students coming from abroad and over 2300 are faculty members.
The number of commuters to Padua varies depending on the sources and periods considered. However, according to recent ISTAT data and local reports, Padua attracts many commuters for work due to its strategic location and the presence of industries, companies, and the same university institutions. It is estimated that around 80,000–100,000 commuters from nearby provinces and other areas in the Veneto region travel to Padua daily for work. The number of Padua residents who commute to other cities for work is also significant, but smaller compared to inbound commuters. These commuter flows are facilitated by well-developed transport infrastructure, including rail and motorway connections to Venice, Treviso, Vicenza, and other nearby cities. It is in a strategic location that makes it an attractive destination for visitors exploring northern Italy also thanks to its impressive historical landmarks, including the Scrovegni Chapel, renowned for its breathtaking frescoes by Giotto, and Basilica di Sant’Antonio, a pilgrimage site.
Religious tourism plays a significant role in Padua. The Basilica of Saint Anthony is one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in Italy and internationally, drawing millions of faithful annually who come to honour the tomb of St. Anthony, a highly venerated saint in Catholicism. Padua is a key hub for health tourism. It is renowned for its advanced medical facilities and healthcare services, which attract numerous patients both from Italy and abroad, contributing to the city’s health tourism. The University of Padua’s Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, established in 1222, has a long-standing tradition of excellence in medical research and education. It collaborates with Azienda Ospedaliera di Padova, one of the most prominent hospitals in Italy, offering state-of-the-art treatments in various specialities. The Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOV) is also based in Padua and is recognised as a centre of excellence in cancer treatment and research. It provides cutting-edge therapies, attracting patients from across the country and internationally.
From a climate change point of view, Padua is facing multiple challenges which impact both its urban environment and surrounding agricultural areas. It is exposed to rising temperatures, shifting weather patterns, and increasingly frequent extreme events such as flooding and heat waves. Like many cities, Padua experiences the urban heat island effect, where urban areas become significantly warmer. This is exacerbated by climate change, causing discomfort during summer months, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as the elderly. Higher temperatures can lead to worsening air quality in Padua, increasing the concentrations of pollutants. This can lead to increased respiratory illnesses and heat-related health issues. It is situated near the Brenta and Bacchiglione rivers, which makes it prone to flooding, especially after heavy rainfall. Climate change has increased the frequency of intense rainstorms, overwhelming drainage systems and causing water levels in the rivers to rise rapidly. Crop yields and water resources are threatened by irregular precipitation patterns, droughts, and the depletion of natural resources, such as aquifers.
The Climate City Contract [81] is a European initiative aimed at making cities more sustainable and resilient to climate change by transforming them into climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030. Padua, along with other cities across Europe, is participating in this programme as part of the EU Mission for Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. Like other selected cities, Padua has committed to achieving climate neutrality by 2030 under the framework of this initiative. This involves a combination of urban innovation, decarbonization strategies, and the integration of sustainability goals into all aspects of city planning and governance. The city is focusing on reducing its carbon footprint through sustainable urban development, including energy efficiency in buildings, enhancing public transportation, increasing green spaces, and promoting biodiversity within urban environments. Promoting the adoption of renewable energy and energy communities is also part of this strategy. The success of the Climate City Contract relies on the collaboration between city authorities, citizens, businesses, and research institutions. In Padua, these stakeholders work together to ensure the implementation of climate-friendly policies and technologies such as the University of Padua, the Chamber of Commerce, the Agency for Energy and Sustainable Development AESS, the Volunteer Service Center of Padua and Rovigo Confindustria Nordest, the Diocese of Padua, the Italian Observatory on Energy Poverty OIPE, and many others in the fields of agriculture, crafts, finance, etc. The Climate City Contract emphasises the need for citizen involvement; for this, Paduan residents are encouraged to participate in sustainable practises and contribute to the decision-making process, particularly in areas related to urban sustainability and energy use.
In sum, Padua represents a multifaceted urban environment where diverse socio-political dynamics intersect, shaping public attitudes toward governance, sustainability, and civic engagement. Situated within a broader regional context that has historically emphasised territorial identity and economic self-sufficiency, Padua—like much of northern Italy—has been influenced by political formations advocating localist, protectionist, and anti-globalist positions [82]. However, while this perspective reflects a significant regional trend, it does not fully encapsulate the complexity and dynamism of Padua’s politics of place [83,84]. The city is also characterised by intellectual and cultural plurality, demographic diversity, and an evolving civic landscape, which contribute to a more nuanced understanding of its governance and social engagement. The presence of a large student population, a civil society with a rich associative network, and vibrant multi-ethnic neighbourhoods fosters overlapping layers of civic participation, where sustainable, inclusive, and participatory practises are increasingly emerging with the support of institutions and local stakeholders.

3.2. Procedure

We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional study [85]. The reference population was the citizenry of the metropolitan city of Padua. The questionnaire was delivered through the Qualtrics platform and participants were recruited through a convenience snowball sampling. Initially, invitations to complete the questionnaire were sent via email to professional networks, community organisations, trade associations, and public and private bodies in the metropolitan area of Padua. These initial contacts were encouraged to further distribute the survey link to their own networks of workers, friends, family members, colleagues, and acquaintances residing in Padua. To increase the response rates and expand the diversity of the sample, the survey was also promoted through social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and neighbourhood online forums specific to Padua.
The period of data collection was from July 2023 to January 2024.
Inclusion criteria for participants were as follows: (a) being of legal age; (b) being a resident in the municipality of Padua. Participants expressed their informed consent by filling out a proper consent form before starting the questionnaire via the Qualtrics platform. Respondents were informed of their right to participate freely in the study, decline to participate, and withdraw from the research at any time. Confidentiality was also granted by anonymising the data and by adopting all precautions regarding data storage. This study followed the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

3.3. Measures

The questionnaire was structured into the following four sections. Items selected from previous work in the international literature were translated and adapted to the Italian context thanks to the advice of a native English speaker. To ensure the appropriateness of the questionnaire in the research context, when necessary, a translation and back-translation process was conducted, followed by a review by experts in environmental psychology and citizen engagement. Additionally, a pilot study involving 15 participants was carried out to assess clarity and cultural relevance. Based on participants’ feedback, minor modifications were made to improve wording and comprehension. Then, reliability analyses were conducted to check the internal consistency, confirming the robustness of the adapted scales.

3.3.1. Section 1: General Data

Items 1–16 investigated the socio-demographic data of participants, including gender, age, marital status, type of dwelling and years lived in the dwelling, income, educational qualification, use of renewable energy, and membership of trade associations or environmental associations.

3.3.2. Section 2: Acceptance and Adoption

This section comprised six items specifically developed by a group of experts in the field to rate the degree of acceptance of different systems of community and sustainable energy production. Examples are as follows: “To what extent would you be in favour of installing a small- to medium-sized renewable energy production system in your city/neighbourhood/ for local collective consumption?”, “To what extent would you be in favour of installing a small- to medium-sized renewable energy production system in your city/neighbourhood to sell extra energy to the network?”, “To what extent would you be in favour of installing a small- or medium-sized renewable energy production system in your city/neighbourhood to get a discount on your bills?” Participants were asked to express their attitude toward the option using a 3-point scale where 1 = “favourable”, 2 = “neutral”, and 3 = “not favourable”. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out on the correlation matrix between the six items, and one item was removed due to cross-loadings. The internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.77).

3.3.3. Section 3: Warm-Glow Motivation

This section includes the Warm-glow Motivation scale with five items (α = 0.89) scored on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = “completely disagree”; 6 = “completely agree”), adapted from Leygue and colleagues (2017) [73]. The warm glow is expressed by a combination of constructs reflecting personal positive feelings, a sense of personal worth associated with energy-saving contributions, and a positive sense of the self in front of others as a “green person” [86]. Examples are as follows: “Being able to contribute to energy saving would make me feel good about myself”, “Being able to contribute to energy saving would allow me to maintain an environmentally friendly image”.

3.3.4. Section 4: Socio-Political Control

This section includes the Italian adaptation of the Socio-political Control scale [87], which comprises nine items rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree; 6 = completely agree). It rates the perceived individual effectiveness toward social and political systems. The internal reliability of the scale after removing one item was good (α = 0.77). Examples are as follows: “I think I understand quite well the most important political issues facing our society”, “People like me, in general, have the necessary skills to participate in the political activity and decisions of our country”.

3.4. Data Analysis

After computing composite scores for all the variables included in the study, statistical analyses were conducted through IBM SPSS Statistics (v.29.0.1.0). When deemed appropriate, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on participants’ responses to the scales (Section 3.3.2, Section 3.3.3 and Section 3.3.4 of the questionnaire) to support the expected unidimensional factorial structure. Then, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to estimate reliability. Descriptive statistics on the socio-demographic variables (Section 3.3.1) and scales (Section 3.3.2, Section 3.3.3 and Section 3.3.4) were computed. Correlation analyses between scales were conducted using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Linear regression was performed to test the possible combined influence of Warm-glow Motivation and Socio-political Control on the outcome variable, i.e., Community Energy Acceptance, using both the bootstrap procedure with 1000 resamplings to obtain the 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) for the estimated coefficients and the Sobel test for testing the significance of the hypothesised mediation effect.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Description

We initially collected answers to the questionnaire from 130 participants, of which 23 were eliminated because their records were incomplete. The final sample was then composed of 107 subjects. Of these, 55 (51.40%) were females, 51 (47.66%) were males, and 1 (0.93%) was non-binary; participants were aged 24–88 years (M = 45.34, SD = 14.141). Regarding marital status, 42 respondents (39.25%) were married, 42 (39.25%) were single, 12 (11.21%) were cohabitants, 6 (5.60%) were separate, and 5 (4.67%) were widowers. Concerning the level of education, 1 subject (0.93%) had completed elementary school, 5 (4.67%) had a middle school diploma, 5 (4.67%) had a certificate or professional qualification, 36 (33.64%) had completed upper secondary school, 10 (9.34%) had a Bachelor’s Degree, 33 (30.84%) had a Master Degree, 11 (10.28%) completed a Master’s course, and 6 (5.60%) had a PhD. As regards annual income, 29 subjects (27.10%) earned less than EUR 15.000, 55 (51.40%) earned between EUR 15.000 and EUR 29.999, 19 (17.76%) between EUR 30.000 and EUR 49.999, 1 (0.93%) between EUR 50.000 and EUR 74.999, and 3 (2.80%) between EUR 75.000 and EUR 99.999.
Ninety-four respondents (87.85%) were not part of any environmental association, while thirteen (12.15%) were members of one of these. Seventy-seven subjects (71.96%) were not part of a trade association, while thirty (28.04%) belonged to one of them.
Seventy-nine participants (73.83%) lived in a home they owned, twenty (18.69%) lived in rented accomodation, and eight (7.48%) were on loan, usufruct, or other. Regarding home typology, 39 subjects (36.45%) lived in an apartment in a medium or large condominium (more than 5 units), 35 (32,71%) in a terraced house, semi-detached house, and similar, 19 (17.76%) in a detached house, and 14 (13.08%) in an apartment in a small condominium (up to 4 units). Respondents spent between 1 month and 83 years in their current home (M = 15.76, SD = 13.96).
Concerning the prevalent type of energy consumption, 80 respondents (74.77%) used domestic consumption in owned homes, 21 (19.63%) used domestic consumption in a rented home, 2 (1.87%) used commercial consumption, 2 (1.87%) used industrial consumption, and 2 (1.87%) used other types of energy consumption. Concerning the type of contract, 94 subjects (87.85%) relied on the private/free market, while 13 (12.15%) relied on a public body. Finally, 67 subjects (62.62%) declared that they did not use renewable energies, while 40 (37.38%) used them.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

As indicated in Table 1, the Community Energy Acceptance distribution showed a left-skewed configuration (SK = −2.14) and a high mean score (M = 14.26), indicating that most values are concentrated at the higher end of the scale and thus that respondents would generally have a highly positive attitude and behavioural intention towards sustainable forms of community energy production and consumption.
Warm-glow Motivation showed a relatively high mean score (M = 4.83) and low standard deviation (SD = 1.00), suggesting consistent responses with a tendency toward higher values of positive feelings associated with energy saving. The skewness and kurtosis values indicate that most participants reported high Warm-glow Motivation (SK = −1.49), and responses were tightly clustered around the mean (K = 3.39).
As regards Socio-political Control, the moderate mean (M = 3.82) with a low standard deviation (SD = 0.78) indicated little variability and relatively uniform perceptions of socio-political control. Near-zero skewness (SK = 0.12) and kurtosis (K = 0.28) pointed to an approximately normal distribution, reflecting a balanced perception of agency in shaping policies or decisions within the community.
Furthermore, the correlation analyses revealed significant, albeit weak, relationships between the examined variables. In particular, the weak positive correlation between Community Energy Acceptance and Warm-glow Motivation (r = 0.28, p < 0.01) revealed that high emotional benefits could foster public support for and engagement in local energy projects.
The weak positive correlation between Community Energy Acceptance and Socio-political Control (r = 0.22, p < 0.05) suggests that people with a stronger sense of socio-political control are more likely to engage in community energy projects.

4.3. Mediation Analysis

Following Baron and Kenny (1086) [88], the direct effect of the predictor variable (X) “Socio-political Control” on the outcome variable “Community Energy Acceptance” (Y) (total effect, path c) was tested: b = 0.08 (SE = 0.03), p < 0.03, 95% CI [0.01; 0.14]; β = 0.22. The degree of explained variance was 5% (R2 = 0.05).
The direct effect of the predictor variable (X) “Socio-political Control” on the mediator variable (M) “Warm-glow Motivation” (M) was (path a): b = 0.35 (SE = 0.12), p < 0.005, 95% CI [0.11; 0.59]; β = 0.27. The degree of explained variance was 8% (R2 = 0.08).
Furthermore, “Warm-glow Motivation” (M) significantly predicted “Community Energy Acceptance” (Y) (path b): b = 0.08 (SE = 0.03), p < 0.04, 95% CI [0.03; 0.13]; β = 0.28. The degree of explained variance was 8% (R2 = 0.08).
In the final step of the mediation analysis, both “Warm-glow Motivation” (M) and “Socio-political Control” (X) were considered in the prediction of “Community Energy Acceptance” (Y). As expected, as a consequence of the postulated mediation hypothesis, while the effect of “Warm-glow Motivation” (M) remained significant (b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, p < 0.02, 95% CI [0.01; 0.11]; β = 0.23), after controlling for M, the effect of “Socio-political Control” of “Community Energy Acceptance” turned out to be nonsignificant (path c′): b = 0.05 (SE = 0.03), ns, 95% CI [−0.01; 0.12]; β = 0.15). The degree of explained variance was 10% (R2 = 0.10). The Sobel test revealed that the mediation effect was significant (Z = 2.24, p < 0.03). Figure 2 shows the mediation model, illustrating the direct and indirect effects.

5. Discussion

In this study, we aimed to identify psychosocial predictors of social acceptance for RECs, contributing to the effort of implementing co-creation and participatory solutions to address the climate crisis. To this end, we conducted a questionnaire among residents of the metropolitan city of Padua, which is actively participating in the EU’s 100 Climate-Neutral Cities by 2030 mission, part of the European Green Deal. In particular, based on the existing literature, we tried to deepen the role of Socio-political Control and Impure Altruism in facilitating social acceptance of RECs, providing initial exploratory results to be reinforced by future research using more robust methodological approaches.
First, consistent with previous studies, e.g., [41], we found a generally favourable attitude and support to different community energy production and consumption forms. We cannot exclude the possibility that this result may have been influenced by a self-selection bias, whereby many respondents may have been people already interested in and engaged with the energy transition efforts of the municipality of Padua.
Furthermore, the core of our study is a proposed mediation model showing significant associations between Socio-political Control, Warm-glow Motivation, and Community Energy Acceptance. In particular, in line with our first hypothesis, the model suggested a direct effect of Socio-political Control (i.e., the perceived ability to influence social and political systems, including local policies) as a predictor of Community Energy Acceptance. This aligns with previous studies indicating that perceived agency and efficacy are key drivers of pro-environmental behaviour and collective climate action [57,58,59]. In the context of energy communities, people who perceived a higher sense of agency and efficacy concerning the political dimension of their existence, feeling that they have a say in decision-making processes, were more likely to support and participate in community-based energy initiatives. Thus, we believe that a way to encourage citizens to participate in the governance of energy systems could be to address the conditions that influence this perception of control over public life. For example, adopting social justice-based approaches aimed at facilitating the participation of diverse social groups, including marginalised or socio-economically disadvantaged individuals, could be beneficial. Additionally, leveraging principles of procedural justice by crafting fair, transparent, and inclusive decision-making processes may foster a sense of agency and ownership over decisions and projects impacting one’s local community [89,90,91]. It is thus crucial to leverage the full potential of the acknowledged mutual relationship between empowerment and participation [92]; community participation might favour the development of relational networks that would, in turn, increase the perception of socio-political control and community empowerment [55,92,93,94].
Additionally, supporting our third hypothesis, the model showed the indirect impact of Socio-political Control on acceptance through the mediation of Warm-glow Motivation. This evidence suggests that Socio-political Control influences Community Energy Acceptance primarily by fostering the emotional rewards associated with helping the community and the planet by supporting sustainable energy initiatives.
The direct effect of Warm-glow Motivation (Impure Altruism) gives strength to our second hypothesis. This is in line with previous research, which stressed the role of the intrinsic and emotional benefits of renewable energy projects [72,73,77,78,95]. Campaigns promoting EC involvement should emphasise the expected co-benefits and emotional fulfilment (e.g., feelings of pride and satisfaction) associated with participation. Highlighting collective achievements, such as reduced emissions and local energy independence, may leverage Impure Altruism, enhancing warm-glow feelings and thus projecting acceptance. Tailored messaging that aligns with community values and needs could further boost public engagement.
In sum, our analysis shows that Socio-political Control, which is rooted in the self-esteem-connected perception of agency and efficacy [96], may enhance the acceptance of collective renewable energy projects by increasing the sense of a warm glow. We argue that this type of motivation adequately grasps the knot of personal and socio-ecological benefits that RECs can leverage. Our results are thus consistent with previous research, stressing the role of both individual benefits and the importance given to group goals behind collective action in the environmental domain [58,97].

6. Limitations

This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the small sample size (n = 107) may have reduced the likelihood of detecting significant effects through the data, as well as increased the possibility of statistical errors. Therefore, the results should be considered with caution and as a preliminary step in this line of research.
Second, we adopted a convenience snowball sampling method. Hence, any generalisation of our results to the general population of the metropolitan city of Padua should be considered with caution. Despite our efforts to disseminate the questionnaire by maximising the diversity of respondents, certain demographic groups or social categories might have been overrepresented or underrepresented, leading to the limited generalizability of the findings. For example, individuals with similar characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, educational level, or interests) are more likely to recruit people like themselves. This could have led to an overrepresentation of specific social groups, particularly those who are already civically engaged or concerned about climate and energy issues. Future research may try to confirm or disconfirm the effects we found using sample stratification techniques and collect a wider number of responses.
Moreover, our study has a precise geographic focus. Factors influencing the social acceptance of community energy initiatives may change according to place-specific characteristics and dynamics, so the extension of our conclusions to different contexts should be carefully evaluated. Future studies may attempt to test the relationships between the investigated variables in other areas, for example, rural or provincial areas. Furthermore, this study was correlational, so experimental designs are needed to confirm the direction of causality. The scores measuring all variables were self-reported and the scales were grouped in a unique questionnaire; the answers may therefore have suffered in terms of social desirability, retrieval inaccuracy, as well as common method bias. The reliance on self-reported attitudes and opinions, which is very common in psychosocial studies, means that the impact on objectively measured behaviour is difficult to estimate. Finally, due to the cost–benefit ratio, we included, in the delivered questionnaire, only a few variables which, according to the scientific literature in the field, could have been relevant. The proposed regression model explained a relatively small portion of the variance in community energy acceptance, suggesting that the predictors examined are likely part of a broader, more complex set of factors influencing this outcome. Future studies may consider a wider spectrum of psychosocial and community factors (such as personality traits, interpersonal and institutional trust, sense of community, and social norms and cultural values) and attempt to detail their effects and interactions in promoting community energy acceptance.

7. Conclusions

This study provides initial insights into the psychosocial predictors of social acceptance for RECs, focusing on the roles of Socio-political Control and Impure Altruism (Warm-glow Motivation). In the context of the ongoing climate crisis and the expected transition to sustainable energy systems, fostering public engagement and support for RECs is critical to achieving ambitious climate neutrality goals, such as those set by the European Green Deal and the EU’s 100 Climate-Neutral Cities. These efforts contribute to aligning local actions with global climate governance frameworks like the SDGs, particularly SDGs 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, 13: Climate Action, and 17: Partnerships for the Goals.
The results demonstrate that Socio-political Control, i.e., the perceived ability to influence societal and political processes, is a significant predictor of community energy acceptance. This finding aligns with previous research that emphasises the importance of participatory efficacy and perceived agency in driving collective action and pro-environmental behaviours. Furthermore, the relationship between Socio-political Control and REC acceptance was mediated by Warm-glow Motivation. This evidence underscores the significance of emotional rewards—such as pride, satisfaction, and moral gratification—in fostering support for energy transitions. Warm-glow motivation highlights the need to go beyond rational economic incentives by addressing the emotional and psychological factors that drive public engagement.
This study’s findings have some practical and policy implications. First, enhancing participatory governance by leveraging participatory planning and decentralised decision-making can enhance the perceptions of socio-political control, fostering a sense of agency and ownership among community members. For example, co-design processes such as local energy forums or citizen assemblies on renewable energy where local residents can actively contribute to the planning, governance, and management of RECs can enhance perceptions of agency and ownership, reinforcing socio-political control. Second, communication campaigns should emphasise the intrinsic rewards of participating in RECs, highlighting the collective benefits —such as climate neutrality, environmental sustainability, community empowerment, and social cohesion—which can reinforce Warm-glow Motivation and encourage broader acceptance.

Future Research Directions

Despite its contributions, this study has limitations that should be addressed in future research. Studies to come should use a wider sample and use sample stratification or random techniques to enhance the validity of the results. Focusing solely on the metropolitan city of Padua limits the generalizability of the findings. The factors influencing REC acceptance may manifest differently depending on local characteristics, requiring context-specific analysis. While metropolitan areas offer stronger institutional and financial support, community fragmentation and limited governance participation may reduce perceived political control. For socio-economically disadvantaged regions, where affordability concerns often take precedence over sustainability considerations, REC adoption requires a stronger focus on energy justice and economic empowerment. Integrating RECs within broader social and economic policies can ensure that participation is not limited to privileged groups, but becomes a tool for reducing energy poverty and fostering local resilience.
In rural areas, social cohesion and local governance structures may facilitate acceptance, but logistical challenges such as infrastructural limitations and financial accessibility can create barriers that hinder socio-political agency. Furthermore, in areas more affected by conservative ideologies that defend regional autonomy and identity, the concepts of Socio-political Control and Warm-glow Motivation may take on a meaning more closely tied to identity-driven motivations and local economic advantages rather than to the perception of community or ecological co-benefits and empowerment. Future research in the field of community energy acceptance could seek to explore how the main constructs of this study play out in contexts characterised by different politics of place and different cultural ideological backgrounds. In this vein, some interesting research questions could be as follows: What kind of energy citizenship does our pattern of results outline? How do particular cultural and political forces contribute to shape it in different contexts? The use of qualitative methods could provide rich and nuanced insights on these issues.
Additionally, the use of self-reported measures introduces potential biases; experimental and longitudinal designs could establish causal relationships and track changes in attitudes over time. Looking forward, future research should explore additional factors influencing REC acceptance, such as trust in institutions, the perceived fairness of procedures, personality traits, education level, age, or levels of social engagement. Investigating how socio-political control interacts with these factors could provide a more comprehensive understanding of public attitudes toward energy communities. Other possible research lines could employ participatory and mixed methods to explore how lived experiences with renewable energy shape individual attitudes, motivations, and acceptance levels of community energy projects.
In sum, this study underscores the importance of integrating socio-political empowerment and intrinsic motivations to foster public acceptance of RECs. By creating systems that empower individuals and tap into their emotional rewards, policymakers can bridge the gap between top-down energy initiatives and bottom-up community engagement. Achieving this alignment will be essential for meeting ambitious climate goals and advancing sustainable energy transitions at local, national, and global levels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and A.Z.; methodology, M.M., A.B. and A.Z.; formal analysis, M.M., A.B. and G.F.; investigation, M.M.; resources, A.Z.; data curation, M.M., A.B. and G.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and G.F.; writing—review and editing, M.M., A.B., G.F. and A.Z.; supervision, A.B. and A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been co-financed by the European Social Fund REACT EU-National Operational Programme for Research and Innovation 2014–2020, owned by the Ministry of University and Research.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Municipality of Padua for their collaboration and support throughout this research, particularly the Environment and Territory Sector Energy Manager Office, Diego Benvegnù. Our appreciation extends to the various organisations and associations actively engaged in the Climate City Contract initiative, whose efforts have been instrumental in raising awareness and promoting sustainable practises within the Padua community. Moreover, we wholeheartedly thank all the residents of the metropolitan city of Padua who generously participated in this study by completing the questionnaires.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission). Clean Energy for All Europeans; Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission): Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2021—The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2023; ISBN 978-1-00-915789-6. [Google Scholar]
  3. European Commission. The European Green Deal; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement; UNFCCC: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  5. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (Recast); Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Itten, A.; Sherry-Brennan, F.; Sundaram, A.; Hoppe, T.; Devine-Wright, P. State-of-the-Art Report for Co-Creation Approaches and Practices with a Special Focus on the Sustainable Heating Transition: Shifft Work Package 2 Deliverable 2.1.1; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ryszawska, B.; Rozwadowska, M.; Ulatowska, R.; Pierzchała, M.; Szymański, P. The Power of Co-Creation in the Energy Transition—DART Model in Citizen Energy Communities Projects. Energies 2021, 14, 5266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Seyfang, G.; Haxeltine, A. Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2012, 30, 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Oteman, M.; Wiering, M.; Helderman, J.-K. The Institutional Space of Community Initiatives for Renewable Energy: A Comparative Case Study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2014, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Caramizaru, A.; Uihlein, A. Energy Communities: An Overview of Energy and Social Innovation; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 978-92-76-10713-2. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoppe, T.; De Vries, G. Social Innovation and the Energy Transition. Sustainability 2018, 11, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sovacool, B.K.; Hess, D.J.; Amir, S.; Geels, F.W.; Hirsh, R.; Rodriguez Medina, L.; Miller, C.; Alvial Palavicino, C.; Phadke, R.; Ryghaug, M.; et al. Sociotechnical Agendas: Reviewing Future Directions for Energy and Climate Research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 70, 101617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chilvers, J.; Pallett, H.; Hargreaves, T. Ecologies of Participation in Socio-Technical Change: The Case of Energy System Transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 42, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Van Veelen, B.; Van Der Horst, D. What Is Energy Democracy? Connecting Social Science Energy Research and Political Theory. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 46, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Menegatto, M.; Zamperini, A. Fare e Farsi Comunità Energetica. Una Prospettiva Psicosociale. Etica Per Le Prof. 2023, 104–111. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wuebben, D.; Romero-Luis, J.; Gertrudix, M. Citizen Science and Citizen Energy Communities: A Systematic Review and Potential Alliances for SDGs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Devine-Wright, P. Reconsidering Public Attitudes and Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: A Critical Review; School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester: Manchester, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hamann, K.R.S.; Bertel, M.P.; Ryszawska, B.; Lurger, B.; Szymański, P.; Rozwadowska, M.; Goedkoop, F.; Jans, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; Masson, T.; et al. An Interdisciplinary Understanding of Energy Citizenship: Integrating Psychological, Legal, and Economic Perspectives on a Citizen-Centred Sustainable Energy Transition. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 97, 102959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koirala, B.P.; Koliou, E.; Friege, J.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Energetic Communities for Community Energy: A Review of Key Issues and Trends Shaping Integrated Community Energy Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 722–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jasiūnas, J.; Lund, P.D.; Mikkola, J. Energy System Resilience—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on Common Rules for the Internal Market for Electricity and Amending Directive 2012/27/EU (Recast); Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Governo della Repubblica Italiana. Decree Law December 30, 2019, n. 162 Disposizioni Urgenti in Materia di Proroga di Termini Legislativi, di Organizzazione delle Pubbliche Amministrazioni, Nonche’ di Innovazione Tecnologica; Governo della Repubblica Italiana: Rome, Italy, 2019; Volume 162. [Google Scholar]
  23. Governo della Repubblica Italiana. Law February 28, 2020, n. 8: Conversione in Legge, Con Modificazioni, del Decreto-Legge 30 Dicembre 2019, n. 162; Governo della Repubblica Italiana: Rome, Italy, 2020; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  24. Governo della Repubblica Italiana. Legislative Decree November 8, 2021, n. 199: Attuazione Della Direttiva (UE) 2018/2001 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, del 11 Dicembre 2018, Sulla Promozione Dell’uso Dell’energia da Fonti Rinnovabili; Governo della Repubblica Italiana: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Governo della Repubblica Italiana. Decree 7 December 2023, n. 414: Individuazione di Una Tariffa Incentivante per Impianti a Fonti Rinnovabili Inseriti in Comunita’ Energetiche Rinnovabili e Nelle Configurazioni di Autoconsumo Singolo a Distanza e Collettivo, in Attuazione del Decreto Legislativo 8 Novembre 2021, n.199 e in Attuazione Della Misura Appartenente Alla Missione 2, Componente del 2, Investimento 1.2 del PNRR; Governo della Repubblica Italiana: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lode, M.L.; Te Boveldt, G.; Coosemans, T.; Ramirez Camargo, L. A Transition Perspective on Energy Communities: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 163, 112479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bauwens, T.; Schraven, D.; Drewing, E.; Radtke, J.; Holstenkamp, L.; Gotchev, B.; Yildiz, Ö. Conceptualizing Community in Energy Systems: A Systematic Review of 183 Definitions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 156, 111999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Batel, S. Research on the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: Past, Present and Future. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bonaiuto, M.; Mosca, O.; Milani, A.; Ariccio, S.; Dessi, F.; Fornara, F. Beliefs about Technological and Contextual Features Drive Biofuels’ Social Acceptance. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 113867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. United Nations (UN). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wolsink, M. The Research Agenda on Social Acceptance of Distributed Generation in Smart Grids: Renewable as Common Pool Resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 822–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Innovation: An Introduction to the Concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Busse, M.; Siebert, R. Acceptance Studies in the Field of Land Use—A Critical and Systematic Review to Advance the Conceptualization of Acceptance and Acceptability. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Upham, P.; Oltra, C.; Boso, À. Towards a Cross-Paradigmatic Framework of the Social Acceptance of Energy Systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 8, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brambati, F.; Ruscio, D.; Biassoni, F.; Hueting, R.; Tedeschi, A. Predicting Acceptance and Adoption of Renewable Energy Community Solutions: The Prosumer Psychology. Open Res. Eur. 2022, 2, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bell, D.; Gray, T.; Haggett, C. The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 460–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Segreto, M.; Principe, L.; Desormeaux, A.; Torre, M.; Tomassetti, L.; Tratzi, P.; Paolini, V.; Petracchini, F. Trends in Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Across Europe—A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ellis, G.; Ferraro, G. The Social Acceptance of Wind Energy. Where We Stand and Paths Ahead; JRC Science for Policy Report; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological Factors Influencing Sustainable Energy Technology Acceptance: A Review-Based Comprehensive Framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Contextual and Psychological Factors Shaping Evaluations and Acceptability of Energy Alternatives: Integrated Review and Research Agenda. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kalkbrenner, B.J.; Roosen, J. Citizens’ Willingness to Participate in Local Renewable Energy Projects: The Role of Community and Trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karakislak, I.; Hildebrand, J.; Schweizer-Ries, P. Exploring the Interaction between Social Norms and Perceived Justice of Wind Energy Projects: A Qualitative Analysis. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2023, 25, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community Renewable Energy: What Should It Mean? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Goedkoop, F.; Devine-Wright, P. Partnership or Placation? The Role of Trust and Justice in the Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 17, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P. Towards a Better Understanding of People’s Responses to Renewable Energy Technologies: Insights from Social Representations Theory. Public Underst. Sci. 2015, 24, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Devine-Wright, P.; Batel, S.; Aas, O.; Sovacool, B.; Labelle, M.C.; Ruud, A. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Social Acceptance of Energy Infrastructure: Insights from Energy Storage. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bögel, P.M.; Trenks, H.; Upham, P.; Sauter, H.; Albiez, M.; Stelzer, V.; Laborgne, P. Diversifying Power in Action: A Socio-Psychological Approach to Inclusive Energy Transition Experiments. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 100, 103070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Goedkoop, F.; Sloot, D.; Jans, L.; Dijkstra, J.; Flache, A.; Steg, L. The Role of Community in Understanding Involvement in Community Energy Initiatives. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 775752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Broska, L.H. It’s All about Community: On the Interplay of Social Capital, Social Needs, and Environmental Concern in Sustainable Community Action. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 79, 102165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cowell, R.; Bristow, G.; Munday, M. Acceptance, Acceptability and Environmental Justice: The Role of Community Benefits in Wind Energy Development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54, 539–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gross, C. Community Perspectives of Wind Energy in Australia: The Application of a Justice and Community Fairness Framework to Increase Social Acceptance. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2727–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zimmerman, M.A.; Zahniser, J.H. Refinements of Sphere-Specific Measures of Perceived Control: Development of a Sociopolitical Control Scale. J. Community Psychol. 1991, 19, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cavazzoni, F.; Fiorini, A.; Veronese, G. How Do We Assess How Agentic We Are? A Literature Review of Existing Instruments to Evaluate and Measure Individuals’ Agency. Soc. Indic. Res. 2022, 159, 1125–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  55. Christens, B.D. Toward Relational Empowerment. Am. J. Comm. Psychol. 2012, 50, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Israel, B.A.; Checkoway, B.; Schulz, A.; Zimmerman, M. Health Education and Community Empowerment: Conceptualizing and Measuring Perceptions of Individual, Organizational, and Community Control. Health Edu. Quart. 1994, 21, 149–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Van Zomeren, M.; Saguy, T.; Schellhaas, F.M.H. Believing in “Making a Difference” to Collective Efforts: Participative Efficacy Beliefs as a Unique Predictor of Collective Action. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2013, 16, 618–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bamberg, S.; Rees, J.; Seebauer, S. Collective Climate Action: Determinants of Participation Intention in Community-Based pro-Environmental Initiatives. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vainio, A.; Pulkka, A.; Paloniemi, R.; Varho, V.; Tapio, P. Citizens’ Sustainable, Future-Oriented Energy Behaviours in Energy Transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Devine-Wright, P. Community versus Local Energy in a Context of Climate Emergency. Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 894–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ohmer, M.L. How Theory and Research Inform Citizen Participation in Poor Communities: The Ecological Perspective and Theories on Self- and Collective Efficacy and Sense of Community. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2010, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bauwens, T. Explaining the Diversity of Motivations behind Community Renewable Energy. Energy Policy 2016, 93, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Van Klingeren, F.; De Moor, T. Ecological, Financial, Social and Societal Motives for Cooperative Energy Prosumerism: Measuring Preference Heterogeneity in a Belgian Energy Cooperative. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2024, 14, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sloot, D.; Jans, L.; Steg, L. In It for the Money, the Environment, or the Community? Motives for Being Involved in Community Energy Initiatives. Glob. Environ. Change 2019, 57, 101936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Koirala, B.P.; Araghi, Y.; Kroesen, M.; Ghorbani, A.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Trust, Awareness, and Independence: Insights from a Socio-Psychological Factor Analysis of Citizen Knowledge and Participation in Community Energy Systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 38, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Andreoni, J. Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. J. Political Econ. 1989, 97, 1447–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Andreoni, J. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving. Econ. J. 1990, 100, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jia, L.; Van Der Linden, S. Green but Not Altruistic Warm-glow Predicts Conservation Behavior. Conservat. Sci. Pract. 2020, 2, e211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schleich, J.; Schwirplies, C.; Ziegler, A. Do Perceptions of International Climate Policy Stimulate or Discourage Voluntary Climate Protection Activities? A Study of German and US Households. Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 568–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Groh, E.D.; Möllendorff, C.V. What Shapes the Support of Renewable Energy Expansion? Public Attitudes between Policy Goals and Risk, Time, and Social Preferences. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sun, P.-C.; Wang, H.-M.; Huang, H.-L.; Ho, C.-W. Consumer Attitude and Purchase Intention toward Rooftop Photovoltaic Installation: The Roles of Personal Trait, Psychological Benefit, and Government Incentives. Energy Environ. 2020, 31, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer Attitude and Purchase Intention toward Green Energy Brands: The Roles of Psychological Benefits and Environmental Concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Leygue, C.; Ferguson, E.; Spence, A. Saving Energy in the Workplace: Why, and for Whom? J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 53, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. St-Louis, E.; Millard-Ball, A. Cap-and-Trade, Crowding out, and the Implications for Municipal Climate Policy Motivations. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2016, 34, 1693–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xu, X.; Xiao, B.; Li, C.Z. Analysis of Critical Factors and Their Interactions Influencing Individual’s Energy Conservation Behavior in the Workplace: A Case Study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 124955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ahuja, J.; Puppala, H. Workplace Energy Conservation Index (WECI): A Tool for Attaining Energy Conservation at Workplace. Energy 2024, 286, 129511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Huang, H.-L. Factors Influencing Attitudes toward and Intention of Citizens’ Engagement with Solar Energy in Taiwan. Energy Effic. 2024, 17, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hoesch, K.W.; Bessette, D.L.; Bednar, D.J. Locally Charged: Energy Justice Outcomes of a Low-Income Community Solar Project in Michigan. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2024, 113, 103569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Clayton, S. A Social Psychology of Climate Change: Progress and Promise. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2024, 64, 1535–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Freschi, G.; Menegatto, M.; Zamperini, A. How Can Psychology Contribute to Climate Change Governance? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. NetZeroCities. Climate City Contract. Available online: https://netzerocities.eu (accessed on 14 December 2024).
  82. Cento Bull, A.; Gilbert, M. The Lega Nord and the Politics of Secession in Italy, 1st ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2001; ISBN 978-0-333-75068-1. [Google Scholar]
  83. Pierce, J.; Martin, D.G.; Murphy, J.T. Relational Place-making: The Networked Politics of Place. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2011, 36, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Van Neste, S.L.; Royer, J.-P. Contested Densification: Sustainability, Place and Expectations at the Urban Fringe. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 4, 975130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Levin, K.A. Study Design III: Cross-Sectional Studies. Evid. Based Dent. 2006, 7, 24–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ferguson, E.; Taylor, M.; Keatley, D.; Flynn, N.; Lawrence, C. Blood Donors’ Helping Behavior Is Driven by Warm Glow: More Evidence for the Blood Donor Benevolence Hypothesis. Transfusion 2012, 52, 2189–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bobbio, A.; Fochesato, M.; Manganelli, A.M.; Crivellari, F. La Scala Di Controllo Sociopolitico Di Zimmerman e Zahniser (SPCS, 1991). Un Contributo All’addattamento Italiano Con Metodo Carta e Matita e Web-Based. TPM Test. Psicometria Metodol. 2005, 12, 61–82. [Google Scholar]
  88. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Biresselioglu, M.E.; Demir, M.H.; Solak, B.; Savas, Z.F.; Kollmann, A.; Kirchler, B.; Ozcureci, B. Empowering Energy Citizenship: Exploring Dimensions and Drivers in Citizen Engagement during the Energy Transition. Energy Rep. 2024, 11, 1894–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Freschi, G.; Menegatto, M.; Zamperini, A. Conceptualising the Link between Citizen Science and Climate Governance: A Systematic Review. Climate 2024, 12, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lennon, B.; Dunphy, N.P.; Sanvicente, E. Community Acceptability and the Energy Transition: A Citizens’ Perspective. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2019, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Itzhaky, H.; York, A.S. Sociopolitical Control and Empowerment: An Extended Replication. J. Community Psychol. 2000, 28, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ohmer, M.L. Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations and Its Relationship to Volunteers’ Self- and Collective Efficacy and Sense of Community. Soc. Work Res. 2007, 31, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ohmer, M.L. The Relationship between Citizen Participation and Organizational Processes and Outcomes and the Benefits of Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2008, 34, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Marrero, R.J.; Hernández-Cabrera, J.A.; Fumero, A.; Hernández, B. Social Acceptance of Gas, Wind, and Solar Energies in the Canary Islands. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bobbio, A. Relation of Physical Activity and Self-Esteem. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2009, 108, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Menges, R.; Schroeder, C.; Traub, S. Altruism, Warm Glow and the Willingness-to-Donate for Green Electricity: An Artefactual Field Experiment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 31, 431–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Climate 13 00055 g001
Figure 1. Model conceptualisation.
Figure 1. Model conceptualisation.
Climate 13 00055 g001
Climate 13 00055 g002
Figure 2. Statistical model.
Figure 2. Statistical model.
Climate 13 00055 g002
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation among variables (n = 107).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation among variables (n = 107).
VariablesMSDSKK123
1 Warm-glow Motivation4.831.00−1.493.39-
2 Socio-political Control3.820.780.120.280.27 **-
3 Community Energy Acceptance14.261.38−2.143.920.28 **0.22 *-
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. M—mean; SD—standard deviation; SK—skewness; K—kurtosis.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Menegatto, M.; Bobbio, A.; Freschi, G.; Zamperini, A. The Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Communities: The Role of Socio-Political Control and Impure Altruism. Climate 2025, 13, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030055

AMA Style

Menegatto M, Bobbio A, Freschi G, Zamperini A. The Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Communities: The Role of Socio-Political Control and Impure Altruism. Climate. 2025; 13(3):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Menegatto, Marialuisa, Andrea Bobbio, Gloria Freschi, and Adriano Zamperini. 2025. "The Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Communities: The Role of Socio-Political Control and Impure Altruism" Climate 13, no. 3: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030055

APA Style

Menegatto, M., Bobbio, A., Freschi, G., & Zamperini, A. (2025). The Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Communities: The Role of Socio-Political Control and Impure Altruism. Climate, 13(3), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030055

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop