Comparative case study explores community acceptance factors for floating solar projects in the Netherlands, suggesting local engagement is crucial.
The global push for net-zero emissions has intensified the search for innovative renewable energy solutions. Floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) systems present an innovative approach to renewable energy generation by using inland water bodies, offering benefits like land conservation and enhanced energy efficiency. Yet, community acceptance remains a key barrier to FPV deployment. However, while technical and environmental aspects of FPV systems have been increasingly studied, their community acceptance remains largely under-researched. This study therefore aims to explore the factors influencing the community acceptance of large-scale FPV projects. We first reviewed papers on community acceptance in order to develop an analytical framework. The framework is used in a comparative case study approach. Three Dutch FPV projects (Beilen, Tynaarlo and Deest), representing varying levels of public support, were studied in depth. Data was collected by conducting surveys and interviewing key informants. Our findings show that community acceptance is influenced by a combination of visual impact, landscape context, perceived environmental impacts, trust in developers and authorities, local involvement, and economic benefits for the community. While the same factors were consistently considered important across cases, the degree of acceptance differed due to how these concerns were addressed locally. In Beilen, high community involvement and co-ownership fostered strong support, while in Deest, limited engagement and perceived losses in recreational use led to significant opposition. The study highlights the importance of early, meaningful community engagement, transparent decision-making, and tangible benefits for local stakeholders in fostering acceptance. These insights can inform the development of more socially accepted FPV projects, contributing to the broader energy transition.[DC (2)].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tulp et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: