This study investigated psychosocial profiles of potential renewable energy community (REC) participants in Italy, examining how individual‐level, community‐level, and societal‐level factors combine to shape participation intentions. Latent Profile Analysis identified distinct profiles among Italian citizens (N = 580) using 11 indicators: Pro‐environmental Values, Civic Engagement, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation, RECs acceptability (individual level); Sense of Community, Institutional Trust, Common Good Orientation, Sense of Responsible Togetherness (community level); and communication clarity (societal level). Three distinct profiles emerged: Civic‐minded Interested (35.5%), Uncommitted (56.4%), and Private‐minded Uninterested (8.1%). Counterintuitively, the Private‐minded profile showed the highest stated participation intention (72.3%), followed by Civic‐minded (67.0%) and Uncommitted (60.2%), though this overall pattern was non‐significant (p = 0.110). No significant differences emerged across profiles in preferred level of engagement. Findings reveal the multilevel, ecological nature of REC participation while highlighting the distinction between stated intentions and the psychosocial resources that typically sustain actual engagement. Results underscore the need for differentiated engagement strategies and community capacity building tailored to distinct psychosocial configurations
Community‐Based Projects for Energy Transition: Citizen Profiling Through Psychological and Social Drivers
Evelyn De Simone;Alessia Rochira;Fortuna Procentese;Francesca D'Errico;Terri Mannarini
2026-01-01
Abstract
This study investigated psychosocial profiles of potential renewable energy community (REC) participants in Italy, examining how individual‐level, community‐level, and societal‐level factors combine to shape participation intentions. Latent Profile Analysis identified distinct profiles among Italian citizens (N = 580) using 11 indicators: Pro‐environmental Values, Civic Engagement, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation, RECs acceptability (individual level); Sense of Community, Institutional Trust, Common Good Orientation, Sense of Responsible Togetherness (community level); and communication clarity (societal level). Three distinct profiles emerged: Civic‐minded Interested (35.5%), Uncommitted (56.4%), and Private‐minded Uninterested (8.1%). Counterintuitively, the Private‐minded profile showed the highest stated participation intention (72.3%), followed by Civic‐minded (67.0%) and Uncommitted (60.2%), though this overall pattern was non‐significant (p = 0.110). No significant differences emerged across profiles in preferred level of engagement. Findings reveal the multilevel, ecological nature of REC participation while highlighting the distinction between stated intentions and the psychosocial resources that typically sustain actual engagement. Results underscore the need for differentiated engagement strategies and community capacity building tailored to distinct psychosocial configurationsI documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


