<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# In Search of “Fertile Ground”: How Territorial Characteristics Influence the Social Acceptability of Renewable Energy Projects

Hugo Delcayre, Sébastien Bourdin

► To cite this version:

Hugo Delcayre, Sébastien Bourdin. In Search of “Fertile Ground”: How Territorial Characteristics Influence the Social Acceptability of Renewable Energy Projects. Environmental Management, 2025, 10.1007/s00267-025-02113-5. hal-04991562

HAL Id: hal-04991562

https://hal.science/hal-04991562v1

Submitted on 14 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# In Search of "Fertile Ground": How Territorial Characteristics Influence the Social Acceptability of Renewable Energy Projects

Hugo Delcayre<fnref n="1" /> · Sébastien Bourdin<fnref n="1" />

Received: 17 July 2024 / Accepted: 8 January 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

Renewable energy (RE) projects are vital to achieving sustainable development in the context of the pressing challenges of climate change and the energy transition. However, despite the global consensus on their importance, RE projects often encounter significant resistance at the local level. This article investigates how territorial characteristics influence the social acceptability of RE projects and explores the concept of fertile ground as a framework for understanding the conditions that foster or hinder local support for such projects. Drawing on theories of regional path dependency and leadership agency, we identify the historical, socioeconomic, cultural and governance factors shaping local attitudes towards RE projects. By employing qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and the analysis of press articles, we develop a nuanced approach that incorporates key territorial dynamics. Our findings reveal the critical role of historical industrial conflicts, political leadership, place attachment and perceptions of fairness in shaping local acceptability. They also highlight the influence of habituation and saturation effects, which shows that the acceptability of RE projects is not static; rather, it evolves over time in response to local conditions and stakeholder engagement. By situating the fertile ground concept within broader frameworks of social acceptability, this study provides actionable insights to policymakers and project developers seeking to align RE initiatives with local contexts and values.

**Keywords** Territorial characteristics · Social acceptability · Renewable energy · Fertile ground · Regional path dependency · Agency

## Introduction

The global urgency to combat climate change has positioned renewable energy (RE) development as a cornerstone of national and international strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Looney 2016; Delafield et al. 2021; Leonhardt et al. 2022). While these strategies set clear targets, such as the European Union's aim to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the successful implementation of RE projects depends largely on their reception at the local level. This highlights the importance of understanding the factors shaping the social acceptability of these projects. In this context, social acceptability can be understood as a multidimensional construct that captures how individuals and communities perceive the viability, desirability and fairness of RE schemes in specific settings (Moesker et al. 2024).

In this article, we define a renewable energy project not only based on the technology it employs but also as a multidimensional entity encompassing its initiators and owners, location, physical design and scale, governance processes, and the interactions between these characteristics and the community where it is situated. These factors, in addition to the technology utilised, collectively shape the project's social acceptability (Niang et al. 2022; Bourdin and Delcayre 2024). Numerous studies have highlighted that social acceptability is significantly influenced by the fit between the project and the local community, including socioeconomic roots, alignment with cultural priorities, and the destination of benefits (Spielhofer et al. 2021; Wolsink 2018). Moreover, social acceptability research emphasises the importance of considering diverse actors, including local authorities, developers and various public groups within host communities (Bourdin and Nadou (2020) Batel 2020). These actors are not homogeneous; they consist of individuals and subgroups with distinct concerns, priorities and levels of influence over the project's outcomes. For instance, local community members may perceive

<footnote>Sébastien Bourdin
sbourdin@em-normandie.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ EM Normandie Business School, Métis Lab, 9 rue Claude Bloch, 14000 Caen, France</footnote>
developers as external entities primarily motivated by profit, which can create tensions, particularly in contexts where economic benefits are limited or poorly distributed (Vuichard et al. 2021). Such perceptions are often exacerbated in the French context, where a highly centralised governance system and the dominance of public utilities like EDF contribute to a disconnect between national energy strategies and local priorities.

Although the terms *acceptance* and *acceptability* are often used interchangeably in the literature, they represent distinct conceptual approaches (Schuitema et al. 2010; Cowell et al. 2011). Recent studies, including Moesker et al. (2024), have argued that *acceptability* refers to the conditions or predispositions that make a project more likely to be perceived positively ex ante, whereas *acceptance* describes the state of support or opposition observed ex post. In this study, we adopt the term *acceptability* to reflect our focus on the preconditions and territorial characteristics that influence how RE projects are received by local communities. The successful integration of RE projects often hinges on engaging key stakeholders in these local communities, such as elected officials, project developers and residents, whose perspectives and trust-building efforts evolve throughout the project's life cycle (Upham et al. 2015; Batel 2020).

Social acceptability encompasses several interrelated dimensions, including socio-political acceptability, community acceptability and market acceptability, which are shaped by factors such as institutional trust, governance processes and the distribution of costs and benefits (Cowell et al. 2011; Hess 2018). From a territorial perspective, one critical dimension is land use—whose land is utilised, for what purpose, and under what property regime. Busse and Siebert (2018) highlight that land use acceptance is often contingent on perceptions of fairness in decision-making and equitable benefit distribution. Such considerations are essential to ensure that RE projects are integrated into local landscapes and economies in ways that align with community values. There is a growing body of research on the role of territorial characteristics—historical legacies, cultural heritage and place attachment—in shaping these dimensions, particularly in regions where resistance to RE projects persists despite broader societal support for the energy transition (Boyle et al. 2022; Milani et al. 2024).

In France, the centralised nuclear power system, which currently accounts for around 70% of electricity generation, creates significant challenges for the shift to a more decentralised energy landscape. As part of its carbon neutrality targets for 2050, the country aims to reduce the share of nuclear power production to 50% by 2035 and increase RE to 40% of total production by 2030 (Ministry for Ecological Transition, 2021). However, the dominance of centralised energy planning often results in RE projects

being initiated and owned by external entities, such as commercial developers or public utilities. This structure can alienate local communities, particularly when projects fail to demonstrate tangible local economic or social benefits (Vuichard et al. 2019; 2021). Such dynamics underline the importance of early and meaningful community engagement, as well as participatory mechanisms that go beyond tokenistic “compensation” (Arnstein 1969). This transition from nuclear energy to RE requires not only technical and policy adaptations but also the fostering of social acceptability (Lee and Gloaguen 2015). France has been historically reliant on nuclear energy. Now, the country faces the complex task of integrating RE projects into regions that are transitioning from being energy consumers to being energy producers. This decentralisation highlights the role of local authorities in managing the energy transition and adapting their strategies to the specific territorial dynamics and socio-political contexts of their regions (Torre and Bourdin 2023).

Despite substantial progress in understanding the drivers of social acceptability, existing studies often fall short of fully capturing the complex interplay of historical, cultural and socio-political factors that shape local responses to RE projects. While governance processes and perceptions of distributive and procedural justice are well documented in this domain (Wüstenhagen et al. 2007; Devine-Wright and Batel 2017), deeper territorial dynamics, such as the influence of industrial legacies or the role of place attachment and community identity, remain underexplored (Raffestin 2012; Bourdin et al. 2020; Faulques et al. 2022; Bourdin and Chassy 2023).

This article seeks to address these gaps by examining how specific historical, socioeconomic, cultural and governance factors relating to territory shape the social acceptability of RE projects. By integrating insights from regional path dependency theory (Mahoney 2000; Boschma 2005) and agency and leadership theory (Sotarauta and Beer 2017), we aim to provide a structured framework for understanding the interplay of these factors. More specifically, we define the concept of “fertile ground” as a set of conditions that promote the social acceptability of RE projects—referred to here as the “seeds.” These seeds include not only the technologies used (e.g., wind turbines, biogas facilities) but also their initiators and owners, governance structures, benefit-sharing mechanisms, physical design, and the interactions between these elements and the local community (Bourdin & Delcayre, 2024). Numerous studies have shown that social acceptability significantly depends on the socio-economic roots of the project, the cultural priorities of the host community, and the distribution of the benefits generated (Spielhofer et al. 2021; Wolsink 2018).

The concept of “fertile ground” is introduced to conceptualize the interaction between territorial characteristics
(the “ground”) and the essential attributes of RE projects (the “seeds”). These seeds represent complex entities that include not only the technology employed but also the project’s initiators and owners, governance processes, physical design, scale, benefit-sharing mechanisms, and interactions with the local community (Bourdin and Delcayre 2024). Fertile ground reflects how the territorial characteristics are shaping community predispositions to support or resist RE projects.

The concept builds on existing research emphasizing the importance of achieving a strong match—or place-technology fit—between RE projects and the territories in which they are embedded (Devine-Wright 2009; Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020). The literature has shown that this alignment includes factors such as governance structures, participatory mechanisms, and the perceived fairness of benefit distribution (Wolsink 2007; Rand and Hoen 2017). Projects that incorporate early and meaningful community engagement, shared ownership models, or participatory governance structures often foster trust and long-term support (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008; Busch and McCormick 2014). Conversely, initiatives perceived as externally imposed or disconnected from local priorities frequently face resistance, especially when led by external developers without visible local benefits (Vuichard et al. 2021).

Fertile ground also accounts for the diversity of territorial characteristics, including property regimes, land-use practices, and historical legacies, which significantly influence social acceptability (Bridge et al. 2013; Batel et al. 2013). For example, land ownership and the level of local control over land-use decisions determine whether communities view RE projects as opportunities for local empowerment or as external impositions (Cowell et al. 2011). Similarly, the historical legacies of conflict or collaboration within a region shape communities’ willingness to engage with external investments or large-scale infrastructure projects (Raffestin 2012; Bourdin and Delcayre 2024).

The relationship between the seed and the ground is dynamic and interactive, rather than fixed or prescriptive. An RE project (the “seed”) evolves in response to the territorial context (the “ground”), influenced by participatory practices and decision-making processes that adjust its design, governance, and benefit-sharing mechanisms to align with the needs of local stakeholders (Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020; Batel 2020). This perspective emphasizes the value of co-production, where stakeholders actively shape the project to reflect their aspirations. For instance, industrial regions may view RE initiatives as opportunities for economic revitalization, while rural communities may emphasize the preservation of cultural and landscape identity (Devine-Wright 2009).

The concept of fertile ground offers a flexible framework for understanding how territorial predispositions—such as

governance structures, place attachment, and historical trajectories—interact with project attributes to shape social acceptability. Insights from energy justice, participatory governance, and studies on place-technology fit inform this framework, providing guidance for strategies that enhance stakeholder engagement, minimize opposition, and ensure that RE projects are tailored to regional specifics (Coenen and Truffer, 2012; Hansen and Coenen 2015; Rand and Hoen 2017). Some territories, due to their unique socioeconomic, cultural, political, and environmental characteristics, inherently offer more favourable conditions (i.e. a “fertile ground”) for RE projects.

This study uses a qualitative approach that combines semi-structured interviews and press article analysis to examine the dynamics of social acceptability in France. The research highlights the factors that either facilitate or obstruct acceptability. Policymakers, developers, and local authorities can draw practical insights from these findings. For example, territories with a history of industrial conflict often require the implementation of measures that rebuild trust and establish participatory governance to address long-standing distrust. In contrast, regions with strong local governance and inclusive decision-making processes may benefit from strategies that sustain and strengthen their existing levels of acceptability.

The remainder of this article is organised as follows: In the next section, we present the theoretical background, situating the study in the broader literature on social acceptability and territorial dynamics. In the methodology section, we explain our qualitative approach and the rationale for selecting France as our case study. This is followed by the analysis of the findings, in which we highlight the key territorial factors influencing social acceptability. Finally, in the conclusions, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this study, and we propose directions for future research.

## Theoretical Background

The integration of RE into local policies is important for addressing climate change challenges, but it often faces social acceptability obstacles. This section explores the key theoretical approaches that help to understand how territorial characteristics influence the social acceptability of RE projects. In it, we draw on two interconnected conceptual frameworks—regional path dependency and leadership as a driver of agency—which we then link to the notion of fertile ground for social acceptability.

## Regional Path Dependency and Social Acceptability

Regional path dependency theory posits that historical decisions and past trajectories significantly shape the
socioeconomic structures and future development pathways of regions (Mahoney 2000). This theoretical framework is particularly pertinent for analysing resistance to RE projects in areas characterised by legacies of industrial conflicts or social struggles, which create lasting effects on local attitudes. Regions marked by negative industrial experiences often develop “territorial wounds,” which influence contemporary perceptions of development projects, including RE schemes.

Path dependency theory has often been applied to regions experiencing industrial decline, and it has highlighted how historical economic decisions can shape specific development patterns that are difficult to alter. Martin and Sunley (2006) introduced the concept of regional lock-ins, illustrating how historical trajectories can constrain economic diversification and adaptation to new technologies, such as RE. Boschma (2005) emphasised that the structure of social networks and local institutions of a territory plays a key role in impeding or facilitating economic change, thereby impacting the acceptability of RE projects. Essentially, path dependency implies that regions are burdened by their historical decisions, which can significantly influence their receptiveness to new development initiatives.

An illustrative case of this phenomenon is the protracted opposition to the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport project in France, which demonstrates how industrial and environmental struggles can shape local resistance to infrastructure schemes. The opposition to this project, which persisted over decades and encompassed protests, legal disputes and land occupations, cultivated a culture of resistance within the region with actor-specific dynamics regarding the various positions on the scheme over time. The events in question left territorial wounds that created a pervasive distrust of development projects, which were perceived locally as imposed from the outside and threatening regional integrity (Schüler 2017). This phenomenon has been characterised as an example of the territorial embeddedness of social struggles, whereby the collective memory of conflict reinforces a local identity focused on safeguarding a region from further perceived threats (Florez et al. 2022). Analogous patterns of resistance have been documented in various regions, particularly in areas that have witnessed social or environmental conflicts. Rüdig (2010) studied the enduring distrust towards new industrial and energy projects in locales that have experienced significant industrial trauma. Similarly, Geels (2014) posited that previous failures and controversies associated with energy development frequently generate scepticism, which renders local communities more resistant to prospective RE projects. These examples highlight the critical significance of historical context in shaping regional attitudes towards RE, and they illustrate how path dependency can lock regions in cycles of opposition to new development.

## Agency, Leadership and Social Acceptability

In contrast to path dependency theory, agency and leadership theory focuses on the role of individual actors, particularly local elected officials, in shaping territorial development and influencing social acceptability (Sotarauta and Beer 2017). This framework is particularly relevant for understanding how local leadership can overcome barriers to RE projects.

Local elected officials with strong leadership skills, a strategic vision and the capacity to mobilise resources can be successful in creating the conditions for the implementation of RE projects (Haupt et al. 2024). These leaders play an essential role in fostering ongoing dialogue with local communities, addressing concerns and adapting to evolving stakeholder relationships throughout the project life cycle. By actively engaging with residents, developers and environmental organisations, they can manage competing political priorities while building trust and procedural fairness. For instance, Knuth et al. (2022) found that local elected representatives with clear strategic objectives and the ability to adapt to community feedback were more effective in steering their regions through intricate energy transitions. Encouraging sustained community participation and ensuring a fair distribution of benefits from RE projects enabled these leaders to reduce opposition and foster greater local support for energy initiatives. This use of an iterative, inclusive approach reflects the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of the leadership required to manage the social acceptability of RE projects.

The importance of agency and leadership in energy transitions has been illustrated by Mey et al. (2016), who examined the socioeconomic transformation of the German cities of Essen and Duisburg, which are located in the Ruhr area. The authors highlighted the gradual social change and tipping points of regions historically dependent on carbon-based industries. They showed that divergent trajectories can emerge from similar local contexts, primarily due to political interventions by local authorities. In line with leadership theory, the authors confirmed the importance of agency in reshaping local trajectories. Narrative interventions, such as those observed in Essen, are not just based on a communication tools; they have a transformative capacity that helps to erode the institutional and cognitive lock-ins associated with fossil fuel industries. The authors also noted that policy interventions played a key role in creating new regional dependency pathways—often in an incremental rather than an abrupt manner—a phenomenon which is relevant to regions undergoing energy transitions.

Moreover, the political orientation of local elected officials significantly impacts their efficacy in advocating for RE. Van der Horst (2007) and Burke and Stephens (2018) found that the political will of local governments, which is
shaped by ideological commitments, was crucial for deter-
mining the success or failure of RE projects. Catney et al.
(2014) observed that local political support could either
accelerate or hinder RE initiatives, depending on whether
local governments prioritised environmental objectives over
competing aims, such as economic development and social
welfare. The personal convictions and commitment of
locally elected officials significantly contribute to the suc-
cess of RE projects. Bourdin (2024) explained that local
leaders can influence the social acceptability of RE schemes
by raising awareness, promoting dialogue and encouraging
stakeholder engagement. This perspective is in line with the
findings of Busch and McCormick (2014) and Mey et al.
(2016), who demonstrated that elected representatives who
proactively addressed local concerns and promoted energy
transition objectives were more likely to cultivate trust and
garner support within their communities.

The political context in which elected officials operate
shapes their perceptions of RE projects and the latter’s
implementation. Delcayre and Bourdin (2024) found that
officials must often navigate competing political priorities
(e.g., economic development, environmental protection and
social equity) when making decisions regarding such pro-
jects. Their ability to balance these priorities and engage
with local stakeholders is critical for fostering social
acceptability. Furthermore, Adesanya et al. (2020) revealed
that partisan affiliations and local political dynamics
facilitated or obstructed the implementation of RE policies.

Conceptualising Fertile Ground for Social
Acceptability

By synthesising insights from regional path dependency
theory and agency and leadership theory, we introduce the
concept of fertile ground as a heuristic tool for under-
standing the interaction of the territorial characteristics that
shape communities' predispositions to support or resist RE
projects. This concept builds on existing research that
emphasises the need for a good match between RE projects
and the sociocultural, economic and environmental contexts
in which they are embedded. It incorporates elements such
as the project fit with local values, community engagement
in project design and the perceived fairness of benefit dis-
tribution (Devine-Wright 2009; Rand and Hoen 2017).
Despite its apparent static agricultural meaning, the concept
recognises that both the ground (i.e., the territory) and the
seed (i.e., the project) are dynamic and co-constituted by
their exchanges.

In particular, the seed is not an external entity passively
introduced into the ground. An RE project evolves in
response to local contexts and is shaped by participatory
practices and decision-making that allow for adjustments to
its design, scale, governance and benefit-sharing

mechanisms (Batel 2020; Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020). This perspective underscores the critical importance of co-production, where stakeholders actively engage in shaping projects to align them with their needs, values and aspirations (Wolsink 2007; Walker and Devine-Wright 2008). For example, community ownership models, shared-governance structures and local co-creation processes can transform a project from an external imposition into a collective endeavour, thereby fostering trust and long-term acceptance (Busch and McCormick 2014; Rand and Hoen 2017).

Furthermore, the ground is not a homogeneous or static
receptacle; it reflects a diverse and evolving set of territorial
characteristics, such as property regimes, land-use practices
and historical relationships among actors (Bridge et al.
2013; Batel et al. 2013). These factors significantly influ-
ence the social acceptability of RE projects by shaping the
perceived alignment—or misalignment—of projects with
local priorities. For instance, property regimes and the
degree of local control over land-use decisions can deter-
mine whether projects are perceived as locally beneficial or
externally imposed (Cowell et al. 2011). Similarly, histor-
ical legacies of conflict or collaboration within a region can
condition the openness of communities to RE projects
(Raffestin 2012; Bourdin and Delcayre 2024).

By framing the seed and the ground as inherently inter-
active and adaptable, the concept of fertile ground goes
beyond the traditional top-down view of RE development.
It highlights the need to consider not only the technological
and environmental dimensions of projects but also the
socio-political relationships and material participation of
communities in their design and implementation. Given this
background, we define *fertile ground* as the interaction of
socioeconomic, political, cultural and environmental factors
that create favourable conditions for the acceptability of RE
projects. In their contribution to the geography of sustain-
able transitions, Hansen and Coenen (2015) argued that
regions with robust local governance structures, inclusive
decision-making processes and active citizen participation
are more likely to be fertile ground for ecological transition
projects. Also, Bourdin et al. (2020) emphasised the role of
local governance in fostering cooperation and building trust
among stakeholders, which is essential for the success of
RE initiatives. Rand and Hoen (2017) created a compre-
hensive overview of wind energy acceptability in North
America. Their results show that perceptions of local ben-
efits and community involvement are critical factors in
shaping acceptability levels. Specifically, they found that
regions with strong public support for wind energy often
shared common traits, such as effective local governance
and active community engagement. This reinforces the
notion that acceptability for wind energy is shaped by local
governance dynamics.
Our framework also acknowledges the variability of what constitutes fertile ground, which is linked to community priorities as well as the type of project and historical context. For example, the socioeconomic roots of a community may determine whether a project's perceived purpose resonates with local aspirations. Industrial regions may view RE initiatives as opportunities for economic revitalisation, while rural communities may focus on preserving cultural and landscape identity (Devine-Wright 2011). This highlights the importance of the concept of place-technology fit (Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020), according to which projects that align with local values are more likely to gain support.

Territorial predispositions, which encompass a region's historical trajectory, local identity, place attachment and political leadership, constitute another critical factor in the social acceptability of RE projects. Bridge et al. (2013) and Van Veelen and Haggett (2017) investigated how local identity and place attachment can facilitate or impede the acceptability of energy schemes, depending on whether these schemes are perceived as enhancing or threatening the local environment and cultural heritage. Devine-Wright (2009) underscored the significance of landscape identity in shaping community responses to RE projects, indicating that initiatives which respect and reinforce local identity are more likely to be accepted. Moreover, integrating community perspectives into project planning, particularly through participatory mechanisms, has been shown to enhance the perception of a scheme's fairness and its alignment with local priorities (Wolsink 2007). This highlights the role of co-production in fostering social acceptability by ensuring that projects reflect the aspirations and needs of their host communities.

Ultimately, fertile ground is not a fixed condition but a dynamic process influenced by the interplay of historical, socioeconomic and governance factors with project characteristics. Recognising the specificities of different territories is crucial for crafting strategies that enhance stakeholder engagement, minimise opposition and facilitate the successful implementation of RE initiatives. Despite the analytical progress made possible by regional path dependency theory and agency and leadership theory, a significant gap in knowledge remains concerning the definition and identification of what constitutes fertile ground for social acceptability. Our study argues that some territories possess unique socioeconomic, cultural, political and environmental characteristics that make them more suitable for RE projects. By integrating the lessons from studies of place-technology fit (Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020), participatory governance and energy justice, this study refines the concept of fertile ground as a flexible framework for understanding and promoting socially acceptable energy transitions tailored to the specificities of regions.

# Methodology

## Data Collection

We opted for a qualitative methodology focused on the French context. Over the course of 2023–2024, two types of data were collected for our case study: 30 semi-structured interviews and 92 articles from the regional and national press. The interviews lasted approximately one hour each; they were anonymised and transcribed verbatim. The participants were selected based on their involvement in biogas or wind power projects, which represent the main RE sources facing problems of social acceptability (Milani et al. 2024). The projects included in this study reflect a variety of initiatives, encompassing both those initiated by external developers (such as commercial companies) and those where local actors, such as municipalities or farmers, played a central role in planning and implementation. This diversity allows for the capture of a wide range of territorial contexts. In selecting the interviewees, we also ensured that they operated in areas with a variety of characteristics (industrial past, history of conflicts, and rural, peri-urban and urban settings). The participants included local elected officials, project developers, farmers, energy industry managers and representatives of environmental associations (see Supplementary Appendix 1). The snowball method was used to give participants the opportunity to recommend other potential interviewees (Raworth et al. 2012). This diverse sample was chosen to capture the range of perspectives that influence social acceptability. In addition, the analysed press articles reflected public discourse concerning both individuals and organised stakeholder groups, such as environmental NGOs and industry representatives.

The semi-structured interview guides were designed to explore dimensions such as the ownership structure, governance processes and physical characteristics (e.g., size, location and design) of the projects, as well as broader territorial dynamics. The interview guides were developed to align with the theoretical frameworks outlined above, particularly regional path dependency theory, agency and leadership theory, and the concept of fertile ground for social acceptability. The interview questions aimed to explore how historical conflicts, leadership dynamics and stakeholder engagement shape the acceptability of RE projects. For instance, we sought to understand how territorial characteristics (a region's socioeconomic history, the leadership strategies of its elected officials, etc.) foster or hinder the social acceptability of RE schemes.

The interview guides were organised around several core themes, ensuring comprehensive coverage across all the participant groups. These themes included the following aspects: 1) the energy transition in the participants' territories, 2) the roles and political actions of elected
representatives, 3) the externalities of RE projects, 4) the interdependence between local stakeholders and their territories, and 5) the geographical, historical and cultural characteristics of each region.

In addition to conducting semi-structured interviews, we examined newspaper articles to capture the public discourse on RE schemes and their social acceptability in France. This was done to supplement the primary data with external information, investigate diverse public and stakeholder perspectives, and broaden the context of our analysis (Boudet 2019).

To collect relevant articles, we used the EuroPress database, which compiles articles from a wide range of regional and national French newspapers. The search covered articles published between January 2023 and December 2024 to ensure that the content addressed contemporary issues related to the RE transition. We employed several search terms, including *renewable energy*, *social acceptability*, *wind power*, *biogas*, *local opposition*, *energy transition* and *territorial development*. These keywords were used individually and in combination with each other to collect a broad and relevant sample of articles. The selection process was based on a set of exclusion criteria. Articles that were purely opinion pieces or editorials without direct quotes from stakeholders or factual reporting were excluded. Duplicate articles or reports published across multiple outlets were also removed. Additionally, articles that lacked sufficient detail or depth regarding stakeholder perspectives or that only provided superficial coverage of RE projects were excluded to ensure that our analysis was based on substantive discussions and insights related to the social acceptability of RE schemes.

To further structure the analysis, we categorised the articles according to the types of events they described. This categorisation followed the framework proposed by D'angelo (2009). It distinguished between reported events, which comprised factual accounts of RE projects; commented events, which included stakeholder opinions, analyses or commentary on these projects; and provoked events, where journalists actively sought responses or reactions from stakeholders regarding specific RE initiatives or controversies (Altheide and Schneider 2012). This differentiation helped us analyse the facts as well as the broader interpretations of and reactions to these facts in the public discourse on RE projects.

## Data Analysis

The analysis of the data followed a structured thematic analysis approach that treated the interviews and newspaper articles as a unified corpus (Table 1). This decision was guided by the need to integrate diverse perspectives—those of the stakeholders and public narratives—into a cohesive

<table><caption>**Table 1** Integration of the theoretical framework and analytical approach</caption><thead><tr><th>Theoretical framework</th><th>Key themes identified</th><th>Data collected</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Regional path dependency theory</td><td>- Historical industrial conflicts<br>- Place attachment<br>- Territorial identity</td><td>- 30 semi-structured interviews<br>- 92 press articles</td></tr><tr><td>Agency and leadership theory</td><td>- Political trust<br>- Local community engagement</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Social acceptability framework</td><td>- Environmental concerns<br>- Socioeconomic factors</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

examination of the factors shaping the social acceptability of RE projects.

We employed framework for thematic analysis to systematically examine the corpus. Using the MAXQDA software, we identified recurring themes and patterns across both the interview transcripts and articles. This process combined inductive coding, which allows themes to emerge naturally from the data, and deductive coding, and it was informed by theoretical constructs such as regional path dependency and leadership agency (Sotauta and Beer 2017). Key themes identified included historical industrial conflicts, trust in political leadership and territorial identity. These themes were grouped into 10 lower-order themes, as detailed in Supplementary Appendix 2, which comprised political factors, economic concerns and environmental considerations.

The 10 lower-order themes were synthesised into two higher-order themes: regional path dependency and leadership agency. This synthesis was informed by the conceptual alignment of the identified dimensions with these overarching constructs. For example, dimensions such as historical context, place attachment and territorial characteristics were mapped onto regional path dependency, while political trust and stakeholder engagement were linked to leadership agency. This hierarchical organisation facilitated the integration of the empirical data with the theoretical framework underpinning the study.

To ensure validity and rigour, we employed Leech and Onwuegbuzie's (2007) triangulation method in the unified corpus. This involved cross-referencing insights from the interviews and newspaper articles to validate recurring themes and dimensions. For example, the theme *resistance due to perceived environmental impacts* was consistently observed in the interview statements and media coverage. The integration of both data types enhanced the depth and credibility of the findings by allowing us to paint a more comprehensive picture of the
territorial dynamics influencing the social acceptability of
RE schemes.

All the coding decisions were reviewed collaboratively
during team meetings to ensure consistency and transpar-
ency; any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
Illustrative quotes and excerpts from the unified corpus are
provided in Supplementary Appendix 2 to substantiate the
identified themes.

Results

This section presents the findings of our study of the terri-
torial factors that influence the social acceptability of RE
projects. It is organised around three main areas: local
political influences, the dynamics of resistance and con-
sultation, and place attachment and landscape identity.

Local Political Influences on the Implementation of
RE Projects

Our results show that elected politicians played a central
role in implementing public policies for the development of
RE schemes. This was highlighted by a representative of an
energy company (interview 20), who said, “An elected
official who has done a lot of research into energy will
understand very well the benefits of wind power or biogas.
In other words, they will make their decision as part of an
overall strategy.” Local political support was essential for
the successful implementation and acceptability of these
schemes, as reported in a press article (Ouest France 2023):
“Without him [the mayor], the project would likely never
have seen the light of day.”

The political affiliations of the elected representatives
significantly shaped the energy policies they implemented
locally, which, in turn, influenced the communities'
acceptability of the RE projects. As an energy company
representative (interview 18) commented,

There are political identities that are more or less in
favour of renewable energy projects. In an RN
[Rassemblement National] municipality, you can
forget about them. You don't even try, whether it's
wind power or biogas. The Far Right is totally against
renewable energy.

This observation illustrates how ideological stances and
partisan commitments influenced the local feasibility of RE
projects.

However, divergent perspectives among stakeholders—
particularly between elected representatives and envir-
onmentalists—also deeply affected the dynamics of RE
implementation. A project leader's interview in the daily

press emphasised this tension: “The environmentalists had
in mind a small-scale project and wouldn’t accept anything
else. They were inflexible on this matter, which created a
real headache in trying to move the project forward.” (Paris
Normandie 2024). Environmentalists are often driven by
concerns over preserving local ecosystems and opposing
projects they view as overly industrialised or profit driven.
For this reason, their stances sometimes clash with elected
officials’ pragmatic or strategic objectives to advance
energy transition goals.

The interviews revealed that environmentalists often
critiqued large-scale RE projects, such as wind farms and
anaerobic digestion units, for their perceived ecological,
social or economic impacts. These critiques reflected
broader worries about the commodification of energy tran-
sition efforts and the alignment of such projects with
capitalist or industrial models. As the head of an environ-
mental association argued (interview 29), “We’re not
opposed to renewable energy, but we need to ensure that
these schemes are truly sustainable and not just
greenwashing.”

The tensions between elected officials and envir-
onmentalists highlight the challenge of reconciling
competing priorities within the energy transition. While
elected representatives may prioritise local economic
development, job creation and achieving national RE
targets, environmentalists emphasise procedural justice,
environmental stewardship and the preservation of local
landscapes. These differing perspectives illustrate the
need for inclusive decision-making processes that inte-
grate diverse stakeholder views. As one local councillor
(interview 9) noted,

You need values, convictions and courage. There are
elected representatives who want to understand; who
want to think; who want to analyse; who want factual,
scientific information; who have no predefined
position at all and who want the best for their area....
They are not opposed in principle. They want to
understand why this or that renewable energy project
could be beneficial and how it could fit into their area.

Despite these tensions, political leadership was a key
element of territorial contexts conducive to RE imple-
mentation. One energy company representative (interview
15) explained this as follows:

They will be able to see that even though it entails
some constraints on certain people, the biogas plant
will allow them to continue farming in the area, and
farming is necessary for maintaining hedgerows,
preserving biodiversity and supporting the cultural
heritage of their municipality.
Resistance versus Consultation

Some areas with a history of social confrontation and
resistance to development projects had developed a culture
of struggle. Regarding this aspect, a professional from the
energy industry (interview 25) said,

In certain departments of the Pays de la Loire region,
there has historically been strong opposition to
nuclear power. In the 1970s, there were plans to
build nuclear power plants in this area. This opposi-
tion has left its mark on the struggles of the trade
unions, the workers and the associations.

Our data show that local communities affected by trau-
mas linked to previous top-down industrialisation and
infrastructure projects were often intransigent in their
opposition to RE schemes. Protest against these schemes
was generally underpinned by collective memories of past
struggles and a deep-seated distrust of the development
promises that accompany RE projects. According to a
councillor from the Loire-Atlantique department (interview
14), "These struggles still feed the local mentality. Recently,
the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport project led to major
confrontations and a culture of opposition that had a big
impact here."

Environmental conflicts created memories of negative
events—territorial wounds—that generated resistance to
new initiatives, regardless of their potentially beneficial
nature. The local councillor quoted above went on to
explain that the people who participated in the Notre-Dame-
des-Landes struggle returned home telling themselves,
“We’re going to win everywhere else. We’re going to
oppose [new projects]. We’re going to set up a collective.
We’re going to petition.” So, the councillor concluded,
“We’ve realised that we need to communicate and that
sometimes we need to be a bit radical. The people who are
fighting [the RE schemes] are opposed to big business and
industry, and they idealise certain agricultural models.”

This culture of struggle was multidimensional and
intrinsically linked to the partial industrialisation of the
agricultural sector through the integration of RE projects,
such as biogas facilities. It was also found in other regions,
such as Brittany, as an energy company representative
(interview 19) observed, "Our friends in Brittany say, 'We
can't support environmental projects that are capitalist and
that are carried out by all these big agricultural coopera-
tives.' They don't want biogas projects because behind
them lies the economic model of intensification." The
resistance in Brittany was deeply rooted in historical and
cultural identity. The region has a long-standing attachment
to small-scale, family-run farms, which are seen as part of
its heritage and a counterpoint to industrial agriculture. This

resistance was also informed by past conflicts over agri-
cultural intensification, environmental degradation and
perceived threats to local traditions and landscapes. These
historical tensions have shaped a collective memory of
opposition to projects perceived as externally imposed or
misaligned with local values.

In contrast, certain areas were more inclined to engage in
understanding, territorial dialogue and consultation. For
instance, in Hauts-de-France, the successful development of
wind power projects illustrated how local authorities fos-
tered dialogue and compromise to overcome opposition.
The region's historical reliance on heavy industry necessi-
tated diversification efforts, which led to a culture of col-
laboration among stakeholders. A concrete example is the
biogas project in the Dunkirk area, where local authorities
organised public forums and working groups to address
residents' concerns about bad odour and traffic. By invol-
ving community representatives and adapting the project
design to their feedback, the developers were able to gain
broad support. As one local councillor put it in a press
article (Courrier Picard 2024):

We know that wind power can be the subject of
debate, but we have no a priori position on it. We
want to take a concrete look at it, with its advantages,
disadvantages, risks and guarantees. Only after
learning about all these elements will we be able to
decide.

Local communities were more willing to accept RE
projects when certain conditions were met, such as the
incorporation of consultation and negotiation mechanisms.
These mechanisms included the active participation of local
stakeholders in decision-making processes, which ensured
that the costs and benefits of the projects were equally
distributed. Stakeholders who were open to compromise set
up consultation frameworks that allowed RE schemes to be
discussed and modified to meet local concerns. As one local
councillor (interview 6) said,

We took our time, and a lot of education was done.
Elected representatives need to assume their respon-
sibilities and stand by the project leaders because
these are sensitive schemes where you can be shouted
at and where you'd rather stay at home on your sofa
than go and talk.

The willingness to engage in dialogue in these areas
reflected a combination of institutional trust, past experi-
ences of successful participatory initiatives and a recogni-
tion of the socioeconomic benefits that the RE projects
could bring. For example, schemes that included mechan-
isms for revenue-sharing or local employment were often
perceived more positively, as they aligned with community
development goals.

The results show a clear dichotomy between areas
marked by a culture of struggle and firm resistance to
development projects and areas exhibiting a culture of
compromise, which were ready to accept projects subject to
conditions. This distinction reflected historical, social and
political contexts that profoundly influenced the accept-
ability of energy initiatives and the dynamics of territorial
development.

Place Attachment, Heritage and Landscape Identity

Rural areas with significant natural heritage and landscape identity posed challenges to the acceptability of RE projects. In a press article, a group of opponents expressed their fears that “the soul of our municipality could be denatured” (Le Télégramme, 2024). Rural areas often have emblematic landscapes that serve not only as visual and aesthetic landmarks but also as symbols of local cultural identity. These landscapes are associated with a deep sense of attachment on the part of local communities, who see them as essential to their heritage and quality of life. As one local councillor (interview 8) put it,

When you come from elsewhere, you move to the
countryside for the peace and quiet and the beauty of
the countryside. The landscape and heritage are very
important. As elected representatives, we need to
think carefully about where projects should be placed.

Wind turbines and biogas units were often seen as incompatible with panoramic views and natural landscapes considered to be unspoilt. Local communities perceived these projects as degrading the natural beauty of their surroundings and damaging their living spaces. One resident (interview 29) said, “Ten years ago, when I bought my house, it was peaceful. Now I’m surrounded by solar panels, wind turbines and maybe soon biogas units.”

However, exposure to RE schemes and time sometimes
reduced initial resistance. This phenomenon has been
documented in the literature, which indicates that as people
become accustomed to new infrastructure, a habituation
effect can emerge, leading to greater acceptability before
saturation occurs. In areas where RE projects are relatively
new, local communities may initially oppose them; even-
tually, though, they adapt to them, provided that the per-
ceived benefits outweigh the drawbacks and that the visual
or environmental impacts are manageable. An article pub-
lished in Ouest France (2024) illustrates this process of
adaptation. In it, a resident is reported as saying the fol-
lowing: “I’m not going to lie, for the first few weeks, I
found it hard to accept the wind turbines overlooking our

fields. But with time, I got used to them, and to tell you the
truth, I prefer them to the chemical factory in the munici-
pality where I work.”

While some biogas projects were seen as symbols of a
region's economic vitality and agricultural dynamism, oth-
ers were seen as alien to the local identity, and they raised
concerns among local communities and elected repre-
sentatives. As one energy producer (interview 22) put it,
“We must explain to the elected representatives that the
ecological and landscape integrity of their area is indeed an
asset and that it must be preserved, but that to do so, we
must move with the times.”

A key tension was that between the need for regions to speed up the energy transition and the protests against the schemes required to make this transition, which were fuelled by the spatio-emotional attachment of some of the stakeholders to where they lived. In areas where natural environs and landscape identity were highly valued, build- absolutely-nothing-anywhere-near-anyone (BANANA) attitudes were particularly pronounced. As reported in a press article (Ouest France, 2024), “It has now become impossible to mention the option of installing a methane plant of any size in any part of the Gers. The inhabitants are opposed, and the mayors fear the consequences.”

To preserve the perceived integrity of the landscape, local communities often rejected RE projects regardless of their economic or environmental benefits. In Brittany, a demonstrator (interview 30) who was concerned about preserving the region's environment said, "We don't want a biogas plant—here or anywhere else." This resistance was exacerbated by a strong attachment to place, with local communities attributing high emotional and symbolic value to their environment. This attachment was deeply rooted in personal experiences, cultural traditions and a sense of belonging, and it led to perceiving change as a threat to these deeply held aspects of life.

Saturation had a notable impact on the implementation of RE projects. Its effects occurred when local communities thought that there was an excessive presence of energy infrastructure in their surroundings, which heightened opposition. In a newspaper article, an inhabitant bluntly said, “There’s enough of it in our area.” (Le Courrier Cauchois, 2023). Saturation emerged as a major cause of resistance in regions that already hosted a significant number of RE schemes; here, residents felt that they had already done their part in the energy transition. The representative of a group of people opposed to new schemes (interview 27) put it this way: “You must realise that this project would come on top of the two existing wind farms.” Local communities felt a sense of injustice when their territories bore a disproportionate burden from RE schemes. In the case of wind turbines, visual saturation affected the quality of the local landscape. This feeling of injustice was
particularly noticeable in regions with considerable land-
scape identity and whose inhabitants were deeply attached
to where they lived. The cumulative effects of multiple
projects amplified environmental and public-health con-
cerns, which reinforced local resistance.

Discussion

Our study builds on two key theoretical frameworks—
regional path dependency and agency and leadership—to
explore the conditions under which territories become fer-
tile ground for the social acceptability of RE projects. These
frameworks help in understanding how territorial char-
acteristics, historical legacies and local leadership shape
acceptability or resistance to such projects. By engaging
deeply with these theories, we are able to explain how the
social acceptability of RE schemes is influenced by the
interaction of long-standing socioeconomic structures and
the agency of local actors.

Our findings confirm the recent study by Bourdin and
Delcayre (2024), who found that the ownership, size and
location of RE projects were as significant as the underlying
technology in affecting their social acceptability. This aligns
with research emphasising that acceptability depends on a
project's socio-economic roots, its perceived fit with the
local cultural and physical landscape, and the purpose and
destination of its benefits (Spielhofer et al. 2021; Wolsink
2018). For instance, community perceptions of ownership
and fairness in benefit-sharing often outweighed concerns
about the environmental impacts of the technology in
question. Similarly, project location, especially in relation to
perceived landscape identity, emerged as a critical deter-
minant of acceptability. Projects perceived as externally
imposed, particularly in regions with a centralised energy
system like France, often exacerbate local resistance.
However, even locally initiated projects can face significant
opposition if they fail to align with community expectations
or adequately address stakeholder concerns. This under-
scores the importance of integrating communities into
project planning and governance from the outset rather than
relying on later-stage “compensation” measures or legally
mandated participation, which can be seen as tokenistic
(Arnstein 1969).

Our results also highlight that social acceptability cannot
be fully understood without recognising the diversity of the
actors involved, including residents, local authorities,
developers and environmental organisations (Batel 2020).
These actors have distinct and sometimes conflicting pri-
rities, ranging from economic development to cultural pre-
servation, which shape their engagement with RE projects.
Addressing this diversity requires participatory processes
that actively include these stakeholders in co-designing

projects to align with local aspirations and values (Walker
and Devine-Wright 2008; Busch and McCormick 2014).

Regional path dependency theory highlights how his-
torical trajectories can lock regions into specific develop-
ment pathways, thus hindering adaptation to new
technologies, including RE. Our results confirm that areas
with a strong industrial past, particularly those with a his-
tory of social or environmental struggles, often exhibit
significant resistance to RE projects. These territorial
wounds—negative past experiences of industrialisation or
infrastructure development—create negative memories and
collective distrust. From this perspective, the concept of
territorial wounds enriches the path dependency framework
by illustrating how traumas can foster long-term opposition
to projects perceived as externally imposed.

Such opposition often reflects a misalignment between
the characteristics of the project and the territorial dynamics
of the host community. For instance, projects that fail to
consider the historical and socio-political context of a
region risk exacerbating territorial wounds, leading to
stronger resistance (Devine-Wright 2009; Raffestin 2012).
Addressing these wounds requires proactive strategies,
including long-term consultation processes and trust-
building measures, to rebuild relationships and foster
collaboration.

In regions with territorial wounds, opposition is not
merely a knee-jerk reaction; it is deeply rooted in historical
experiences that have shaped local identity and perceptions
of outside intervention. This aligns with the work of Martin
and Sunley (2006) on regional lock-ins. According to these
authors, historical trajectories constrain the ability of
regions to diversify and embrace new technologies. This
notion complements the research of other scholars, who
have underlined the role of physical environments in
influencing people's sense of place and resistance to pro-
jects perceived as disruptive. Devine-Wright (2009) has
highlighted that disruptions to place identity often trigger
protective actions by communities, as observed in our
findings on rural areas with strong place attachment. The
idea of territorial wounds points to the importance of spa-
tiotemporal dimensions in shaping local resistance and how
addressing such wounds through long-term engagement and
trust-building measures is essential for RE projects to be
accepted.

In contrast to the structural approach of path dependency
theory, agency and leadership theory helps us understand
the vital role that individual actors, particularly local elected
officials, play in affecting the social acceptability of RE
projects. Our study confirms that local political leadership is
a decisive factor in creating fertile ground for such projects.
Elected representatives with strong leadership skills, a clear
strategic vision and the capacity to engage stakeholders are
more successful in reducing local opposition. This includes
adopting place-sensitive strategies that reflect the socio-economic and cultural identity of the host community, ensuring that RE projects align with local values and development goals (Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020). Moreover, the political orientation of these leaders significantly impacts their ability to advocate for RE schemes. For instance, Catney et al. (2014) and Bourdin (2024) found that political support was critical for aligning local development goals with RE initiatives. Our findings confirm this result by demonstrating how proactive leadership fosters trust and acceptance. When local elected officials prioritise environmental objectives, their capacity to mobilise resources and have a dialogue with local communities creates the conditions for the energy transition. However, as Van der Horst (2007) and Burke and Stephens (2018) noted, political ideologies can either facilitate or obstruct dialogue. Our findings support this view by showing that the political will of elected officials, which is shaped by their personal convictions and commitment to the energy transition, plays a crucial role in determining the success of RE projects.

The interaction between leadership and local dynamics also underscores the importance of place-technology fit (Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020). In regions where RE schemes align with the cultural and historical identity of a place, acceptance is higher. Conversely, misalignment exacerbates resistance, as seen in rural areas with strong place attachment. For example, when leaders advocate for projects that visibly benefit the local community—through shared ownership, equitable benefit distribution, and alignment with the region's socio-economic roots—projects are more likely to gain support (Vuichard et al. 2021; Spielhofer et al. 2021).

In our view, creating fertile ground for the social acceptability of RE projects is not only a matter of historical trajectory but also of leadership. Local leaders must be capable of engaging communities and balancing competing priorities, such as economic development and environmental protection. Furthermore, personal motivation plays a significant role as leaders may sometimes transcend their political affiliations and personal beliefs regarding the ecological transition, driven by a commitment to fostering collective purpose and long-term environmental stewardship. This ability to transcend politics introduces an element of unpredictability, as it depends on the capacity of individuals to prioritise community well-being over personal convictions.

The concept of fertile ground provides a valuable framework for understanding why certain territories are more receptive to RE projects than others (Table 2). In this domain, fertile ground is produced by the dynamic interaction of historical, socioeconomic, political and environmental factors, which creates favourable conditions for the acceptability of RE schemes. This perspective is in line with

<table><caption>**Table 2** Conceptual framework for the notion of fertile ground for social acceptability</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Research question</th><th>Illustrative example</th><th>Implications for planning and governance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Historical legacies</td><td>How do past industrial conflicts shape current perceptions of RE projects?</td><td>Resistance to wind farms in Loire-Atlantique shaped by collective memories of the Notre-Dame-des-Landes struggle.</td><td>Address territorial wounds through long-term trust-building and transparent communication strategies.</td></tr><tr><td>Place attachment</td><td>In what ways do emotional and symbolic values attributed to landscapes influence resistance?</td><td>Rural communities in Brittany opposing biogas projects due to perceived threats to local agricultural heritage and cultural identity.</td><td>Ensure early engagement with local communities to integrate cultural and landscape values into project design.</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership and agency</td><td>What leadership strategies foster community trust and engagement with RE projects?</td><td>Proactive mayoral leadership in Hauts-de-France integrating RE schemes with local economic revitalisation efforts.</td><td>Foster place-sensitive leadership that aligns RE projects with local development goals and community priorities.</td></tr><tr><td>Governance and inclusion</td><td>How do participatory governance practices affect stakeholder buy-in for RE projects?</td><td>Structured consultation processes in Nouvelle-Aquitaine reducing opposition to solar installations through inclusive decision-making.</td><td>Develop participatory frameworks that empower communities and ensure equitable benefit distribution.</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>How do cumulative RE projects affect local perceptions of fairness and justice?</td><td>Overconcentration of wind turbines in Normandy leading to perceptions of visual and environmental saturation.</td><td>Limit saturation through regional planning that balances energy needs with local acceptability thresholds.</td></tr><tr><td>Land use</td><td>How does the ownership, type, and use of land influence the acceptability of RE projects?</td><td>Resistance to biogas facilities in Britanny, where communities oppose the shift from food production to energy production on farmland, perceiving it as a form of industrialisation that threatens the region's agricultural heritage and traditional land use practices</td><td>Develop land-use frameworks that consider local property regimes, cultural significance, and competing land uses.</td></tr></tbody></table>
that of Hansen and Coenen (2015), who argued that robust governance structures, inclusive decision-making and citizen participation are the key characteristics of regions that successfully integrate RE. Similarly, our work supports Devine-Wright's (2011) findings on how enhancing local distinctiveness can strengthen community support for RE initiatives. In territories that exhibit these characteristics, RE projects are more likely to be accepted because they are perceived as being aligned with local values and development goals. For instance, when there is alignment, new energy infrastructure has a higher probability of being welcomed in areas with strong place attachment and a history of local governance that fosters cooperation and trust among stakeholders.

Our findings also emphasise the role of saturation in shaping local resistance. As noted in the literature (e.g., Devine-Wright and Wiersma 2020), perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice arise when communities feel overburdened by RE schemes. This reinforces resistance in regions with strong place attachment, where the cumulative visual and environmental impacts of multiple projects amplify local concerns. Our results resonate with studies of energy justice (Walker and Day 2012), which have highlighted the importance of the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens from RE schemes to ensure long-term acceptability. To overcome these challenges, it is essential to account for both the specific attributes of individual projects and the broader regional context to prevent project saturation from eroding local trust and collaborative dynamics.

Regions with legacies of industrial conflict or environmental degradation may require more effort to rebuild trust and create the conditions for RE development. Our study also shows that fertile ground is not a static condition but one that evolves over time. Territorial predispositions, influenced by past experiences and current governance, determine whether an area can become fertile ground for RE projects. This dynamic view highlights the need for flexible, context-sensitive strategies to enhance social acceptability; therefore these strategies must be tailored to the unique characteristics of regions.

Finally, land use plays a central role in shaping the social acceptability of RE projects from a territorial perspective. As highlighted by Busse and Siebert (2018), acceptance of land use often emerges as a positive outcome of a judgment process that considers ownership, competing uses, and the socio-cultural significance of the land. Our findings reinforce this perspective by showing that conflicts over RE projects frequently arise when communities perceive these initiatives as threats to existing land uses or local property regimes. For instance, biogas facilities in Brittany have faced resistance due to concerns about converting farmland from food production to energy production, which is seen as

a form of industrialization that threatens the agricultural heritage and symbolic value of the region. Similarly, wind farms in rural Normandy have sparked opposition due to their perceived disruption of open landscapes, which are integral to the region's cultural identity and sense of place.

Conflicts over land use are often exacerbated by the lack of inclusive and participatory planning processes that do not involve local stakeholders early in the project lifecycle. These shortcomings can reinforce perceptions of injustice, particularly when projects are viewed as externally imposed rather than locally integrated. Establishing participatory frameworks that respect diverse property regimes and actively include local voices can significantly enhance the acceptability of RE projects. This approach aligns with the territorial perspective emphasized by Bridge et al. (2013), who argue that land, space, and territory must be treated as interconnected resources subject to negotiation and investment.

The implications of this study extend beyond the French context. The fertile ground framework can be applied to other countries and types of RE projects. Policymakers and project developers must recognise the importance of local historical and cultural contexts in shaping the success or failure of RE initiatives. By adopting a place-based approach that considers regional path dependencies, leadership dynamics and community engagement, they can craft more effective strategies to enhance stakeholder acceptability. This includes designing projects that strengthen local distinctiveness by aligning RE schemes with the unique cultural and historical attributes of regions, as suggested by Devine-Wright (2011).

In regions marked by territorial wounds, long-term consultation processes and community-driven approaches are essential for restoring trust and overcoming resistance. In areas that are already fertile ground, the focus should be on maintaining inclusive governance structures that foster cooperation among stakeholders. Understanding territorial specificities can enable policymakers to better tailor their strategies, which can enhance social acceptability and facilitate the energy transition.

While our study provides valuable insights, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The qualitative nature of this research does not offer a quantitative view of a larger sample of territories. Future scholars could enhance our framework by incorporating quantitative methods (e.g., surveys and statistical models) to further investigate the territorial characteristics that promote or hinder the social acceptability of RE schemes. Factors such as average age, income level, political history, protected areas, educational attainment, local employment structure and other social variables could provide further insights into which territories are more likely to accept or resist RE projects. Furthermore, external factors (e.g., national and regional
energy policies) were not examined, but they could be
valuable for future research. Incorporating these elements
would help refine the fertile ground framework and provide
more precise, actionable guidance to policymakers and
project developers working to enhance the social accept-
ability of RE schemes. Finally, future scholars could refine
our framework by examining its applicability in different
cultural and political contexts. For example, applying the
research questions in Table 2 to regions with diverse energy
systems (e.g., coal-dependent regions in eastern Europe)
could validate the framework’s generalizability. Quantita-
tive approaches, such as the GIS mapping of territorial
characteristics, could complement qualitative insights and
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
dynamics influencing the social acceptability of RE
initiatives.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

This article aimed to identify the specific features of
territories that create the conditions for the social
acceptability of RE projects. Given the challenges of
climate change and the need to accelerate the energy
transition, it is important to understand how territorial
characteristics influence the acceptability of RE. By
adopting a qualitative approach based on semi-structured
interviews and the analysis of press articles, our study
conducted an in-depth examination of the territorial fac-
tors that constitute fertile ground for RE schemes. Our
findings highlight how historical and spatial contexts
shape local reactions to such schemes. Territories marked
by industrial or environmental traumas require tailored
strategies to rebuild trust, such as inclusive consultation
processes and participatory project planning.

The results of this study have several practical implica-
tions for local decision-makers and energy project devel-
opers. First, when a project is being considered, it is
essential to identify whether the area in which it is to be
located can be classified as fertile ground. If the area has
been “wounded” in the past, decision-makers need to
establish ongoing processes of consultation and dialogue
with local stakeholders to restore trust and co-construct
solutions tailored to the specific characteristics of the
region. For example, in areas with a history of resistance to
industrial projects, local authorities could organise public
forums and participatory workshops to include the voices of
local community members in project planning. Doing so
would imply that the project developer was willing to allow
their project to be widely discussed or even significantly
modified to respond to local fears. Moreover, policymakers
and developers must recognise that the social acceptability
of RE schemes is determined by a combination of

technological, spatial, social and governance factors.
Addressing these in an integrated manner is essential for
fostering long-term support and minimising opposition.

Second, it is important to distribute RE infrastructure
fairly to avoid saturation effects. Decision-makers need to
adopt a more balanced approach to regional planning,
ensuring that the benefits and costs of new facilities are
shared fairly. This approach entails developing compensa-
tion mechanisms for the areas in which these facilities are
located, such as schemes to enable local communities to
take an equity stake in RE projects and thus benefit from
their economic spinoffs.

Third, the role of local leaders is also fundamental. Local
elected representatives must be given the resources they
need to exercise effective leadership and inspire the con-
fidence of local community members. Training and
awareness-raising programmes for these representatives can
strengthen their ability to their fellow citizens of the use-
fulness of RE projects. In addition, elected representatives
must demonstrate a clear strategic vision and a firm com-
mitment to energy transition objectives while remaining
sensitive to local dynamics and concerns.

In the French context, the energy transition presents
unique challenges due to the country’s historical reliance on
nuclear power, which accounts for approximately 70% of its
electricity generation. Recent policies have set the goal of
diversifying the energy mix by increasing the share of
renewables to 40% by 2030, which makes it essential to
thoroughly examine local attitudes towards new RE pro-
jects. This study recognises that while identifying regions
with higher social acceptability—fertile ground—is central
to this endeavour, doing so risks creating saturation if these
regions are made to host too many facilities. This saturation
could compromise community support and jeopardise the
long-term viability of RE schemes.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current
study.

**Supplementary information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02113-5.

**Acknowledgements** Normandy Region (Project MECANO), Interreg North-Sea (Project BIOZE).

**Author Contributions** SB and HD wrote the main manuscript text, did the interviews and the overall analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

**Conflict of Interest** The authors declare no competing interests.
**Publisher's note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

## References

Adesanya AA, Sidortsov RV, Schelly C (2020) Act locally, transition globally: Grassroots resilience, local politics, and five municipalities in the United States with 100% renewable electricity. Energy Res Soc Sci 67:101579

Altheide DL, Schneider CJ (2012) Qualitative media analysis, Vol. 38. Sage publications, Los Angeles

Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 35(4):216-224

Batel S (2020) Research on the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies: Past, present and future. Energy Res Soc Sci, 68:1-5

Batel S, Devine-Wright P, Tangeland T (2013) Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy Policy, 58:1-5

Boschma RA (2005) Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Stud 39(1):61-74

Boudet HS (2019) Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat energy 4(6):446-455

Bourdin S (2024) The interplay of politics and space: How elected politicians shape place-based policies and outcomes. Geographical J, e12591

Bourdin S, Delcayre H (2024) Does size matter? The effects of biomethane project size on social acceptability. Energy Policy 195:114363

Bourdin S, Chassy A (2023) Are citizens ready to make an environmental effort? A study of the social acceptability of biogas in France. Environ Manag 71(6):1228-1239

Bourdin S, Nadou F (2020) The role of a local authority as a stakeholder encouraging the development of biogas: a study on territorial intermediation. J Environ Manag 258:110009

Bourdin S, Colas M, Raulin F (2020) Understanding the problems of biogas production deployment in different regions: territorial governance matters too. J Environ Plan Manag 63(9):1655-1673

Bourdin S, Raulin F, Josset C (2020) On the (un) successful deployment of renewable energies: Territorial context matters. A conceptual framework and an empirical analysis of biogas projects. Energy Stud Rev, 24(1)

Boyle E, Galvin M, Revez A, Deane A, Gallachóir B. Ó, Mullally G (2022) Flexibility & structure: Community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery. Energy Policy 167:113050

Bridge G, Bouzarovski S, Bradshaw M, Eyre N (2013) Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53:331-340

Burke MJ, Stephens JC (2018) Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Res Soc Sci 35:78-93

Busch H, McCormick K (2014) Local power: exploring the motivations of mayors and key success factors for local municipalities to go 100% renewable energy. Energy Sustain Soc 4:1-15

Busse M, Siebert R (2018) Acceptance studies in the field of land use- A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability. Land Use Policy 76:235-245

Catney P, MacGregor S, Dobson A, Hall SM, Royston S, Robinson Z, Ross S (2014) Big society, little justice? Community renewable energy and the politics of localism. Local Environ 19(7):715-730

Coenen L, Truffer B (2012) Places and spaces of sustainability transitions: geographical contributions to an emerging research and policy field. Eur Plan Stud 20(3):367-374

Cowell R, Bristow G, Munday M (2011) Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J Environ Plan Manag 54(4):539-557

D'angelo P (2009) Doing news framing analysis. Routledge, New York

Delafield G, Donnison C, Roddis P, Arvanitopoulos T, Sfyridis A, Dunnett S, Logan KG (2021) Conceptual framework for balancing society and nature in net-zero energy transitions. Environ Sci Policy 125:189-201

Delcayre H, Bourdin S (2024) Beyond “Not In My Electoral Year”: Why are some local elected officials not supporting energy transition projects? Working Paper, EM Normandie, Caen

Devine-Wright P (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J community Appl Soc Psychol 19(6):426-441

Devine-Wright P, Batel S (2017) My neighbourhood, my country or my planet? The influence of multiple place attachments and climate change concern on social acceptance of energy infrastructure. Glob Environ Change 47:110-120

Devine-Wright P, Wiersma B (2020) Understanding community acceptance of renewable energy projects: Place attachment and “place-technology fit. Energy Res Soc Sci 63:101398

Faulques M, Bonnet J, Bourdin S, Juge M, Pigeon J, Richard C (2022) Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies. Energy Policy 168:113094

Florez M, Baudelle G, Hardouin M (2022) Notre-Dame-des-Landes or redefining the relationship to space through the territorial embeddedness of a struggle. Antipode 54(3):772-799

Geels FW (2014) Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult Soc 31(5):21-40

Hansen T, Coenen L (2015) The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environ Innov Societal Transit 17:92-109

Haupt W, Laug L, Eckersley P (2024) Structure, agency and local climate governance: how do individual actors exploit local contexts to shape policymaking in smaller cities and towns?. Regional Stud, 1-15

Hess DJ (2018) Energy democracy and social movements: A multi-coalition perspective on the politics of sustainability transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:177-189

Knuth S, Behrsin I, Levenda A, McCarthy J (2022) New political ecologies of renewable energy. Environ Plan E Nat Space 5(3):997-1013

Lee RP, Gloaguen S (2015) Path-dependence, lock-in, and student perceptions of nuclear energy in France: Implications from a pilot study. Energy Res Soc Sci 8:86-99

Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2007) An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. Sch Psychol Q 22(4):557

Leonhardt R, Noble B, Poelzer G, Fitzpatrick P, Belcher K, Holdmann G (2022) Advancing local energy transitions: A global review of government instruments supporting community energy. Energy Res Soc Sci 83:102350
Looney R (ed) (2016) Handbook of transitions to energy and climate security. Routledge, London

Mahoney J (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology. *Theory Soc* 29(4):507–548

Martin R, Sunley P (2006) Path dependence and regional economic evolution. *J Econ Geogr* 6(4):395–437

Mey F, Diesendorf M, MacGill I (2016) Can local government play a greater role for community renewable energy? A case study from Australia. *Energy Res Soc Sci* 21:33–43

Milani A, Dessi F, Bonaiuto M (2024) A meta-analysis on the drivers and barriers to the social acceptance of renewable and sustainable energy technologies. *Energy Res Soc Sci* 114:103624

Moesker K, Pesch U, Doorn N (2024) Making sense of acceptance and acceptability: Mapping concept use in energy technologies research. *Energy Res Soc Sci* 115:103654

Niang A, Torre A, Bourdin S (2022) Territorial governance and actors’ coordination in a local project of anaerobic digestion. A social network analysis. *Eur Plan Stud* 30(7):1251–1270

Rand J, Hoen B (2017) Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned? *Energy Res Soc Sci* 29:135–148

Raworth K, Sweetman C, Narayan S, Rowlands J, Hopkins A (2012) Conducting semi-structured interviews. *Oxfam*

Raffestin C (2012) Space, territory, and territoriality. *Environ Plan D: Soc Space* 30(1), 121–141

Rüdig W (2010) Nuclear power: a post-heroic industry. *Environ Politics* 19(1):146–150

Schuitema G, Steg L, Forward S (2010) Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. *Transp Res Part A Policy Pract* 44(2):99–109

Schüler S (2017) The zone à defendre of Notre-Dame-des-Landes in France: an ambivalent space for social critique. *Urbanities* 7(1):45–62

Sotarauta M, Beer A (2017) Governance, agency and place leadership: Lessons from a cross-national analysis. *Regional Stud* 51(2):210–223

Spielhofer R, Thrash T, Wissen Hayek U, Grêt-Regamey A, Salak B, Grübel J, Schwaab J (2021) Physiological and behavioral reactions to renewable energy systems in various landscape types. *Renew Sustain Energy Rev* 135:110410

Torre A, Bourdin S (2023) The French territorial reform of the regions: Objectives, risks and challenges for some forgotten territories. *Int J Pub Admin* 46(11):761–772

Upham P, Oltra C, Boso À (2015) Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems. *Energy Res Soc Sci* 8:100–112

Van der Horst D (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. *Energy Policy* 35(5):2705–2714

Van Veelen B, Haggett C (2017) Uncommon ground: the role of different place attachments in explaining community renewable energy projects. *Sociologia Ruralis* 57:533–554

Vuichard P, Stauch A, Dällenbach N (2019) Individual or collective? Community investment, local taxes, and the social acceptance of wind energy in Switzerland. *Energy Res Soc Sci* 58:101275

Vuichard P, Stauch A, Wüstenhagen R (2021) Keep it local and low-key: Social acceptance of alpine solar power projects. *Renew Sustain Energy Rev* 138:110516

Walker G, Day R (2012) Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics. *Routledge, Los Angeles*

Walker G, Devine-Wright P (2008) Community renewable energy: What should it mean? *Energy Policy* 36(2):497–500

Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives. *Renew Sustain Energy Rev* 11(6):1188–1207

Wolsink M (2018) Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. *Landsc Res* 43(4):542–561

Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. *Energy Policy* 35(5):2683–2691