Qualitative study analyzes local acceptance of solar projects in rural areas, highlighting the role of justice in perceptions.
As renewable energy adoption expands in rural areas, economic benefits and environmental awareness alone are insufficient to explain regional differences in acceptance of the same solar power generation project. Based on this recognition, this study analyzed local acceptance patterns by selecting three cases (Solbawoo Village in Chuncheon, Songam-dong Village in Chuncheon, and Guyang-ri Village in Yeoju) with different project implementation entities and operational structures. Semi-structured interviews with 21 residents were conducted, and thematic analysis was used to compare within and between cases. The analysis revealed that local acceptance is not determined by a single factor, but rather by a multi-layered structure that includes establishing procedural fairness, awareness of the distribution structure, and the accumulation of recognitional justice. In the case of community-led projects, trust was built through repeated participation and community-level distribution, which gradually led to changes in perceptions of solar power generation projects and the environment. In contrast, projects with partial participation maintained a certain level of acceptance based on trust in the operating entity, but limitations were observed in the scope of participation and recognitional justice. In non-participatory projects, persistent non-disclosure of information and procedural exclusion made it difficult to secure local acceptance. These results suggest that local acceptance of rural renewable energy projects is not determined by individual factors, but rather by the interplay of procedural, distributive, and perceived justice. This study qualitatively analyzes local acceptance of rural solar power projects from an environmental justice perspective and suggests the importance of designing participatory structures and distribution methods when developing future renewable energy policies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: