Doctoral Program - Pauline Ascon

Social Acceptability of Decarbonization Solutions in Europe: Implications for Prospective Modeling and Long-Term Energy Planning

 

Id. card:

 

   Project Type:            Doctoral project proposed at IFPEN in the frame of the CarMa IFP School Chair

   Duration:                  3 years, starting on November 2025

   Supervisors:             Sandrine Selosse (CMA - Mines Paris PSL), Carlos Andrade (IFPEN) 

Context, State of the Art

Limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C and reducing the impacts of climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity faces today. Achieving this requires radical changes in human activities heavily reliant on fossil fuels, particularly an essential transition toward low-carbon energy sources. To address this challenge, prospective modeling plays a critical role, as it allows us to explore the long-term evolution of energy systems under different scenarios, following constraints that reflect the conditions we aim to achieve or avoid (Rogelj et al., 2016; Verrier et al., 2022).

Prospective modeling helps define these choices and determine policies that guide energy systems toward desired trajectories. It provides policymakers at all levels and industry actors with an overview of the implications of implementing or not implementing various policies (Weyant, 2017). In this context, renewable energy development is often considered the cornerstone of decarbonization strategies (Liebe & Dobers, 2019), with trajectories targeting 100% decarbonized energy production by 2050 (Adedoyin et al., 2023). However, achieving these goals can be slowed by various obstacles, including public resistance (Huijts, Molin & Steg, 2012). Studies have examined opposition to wind energy (Liebe & Dobers, 2019; Langer et al., 2018), hydrogen (Huijts et al., 2012; Barbier & Agnoletti, 2023), biomass (Kortsch, Hildebrand & Schweizer-Ries, 2015), and carbon capture and storage (L’Orange Seigo, Dohle & Siegrist, 2014). Ignoring these social dimensions can seriously compromise decarbonization efforts (Bronfman et al., 2012).

The absence of social aspects in energy models can be explained by their initial focus on ensuring energy supply at minimal cost, largely neglecting public opinion. Traditional energy system models concentrated on techno-economic and policy constraints (Krumm, Süsser & Blechinger, 2022), underrepresenting social constraints, despite their critical role in technology adoption. The low-carbon energy transition is particularly driven by societal awareness of environmental issues. It is a complex process, involving not only the promotion of new technologies or resources but also the establishment of governance mechanisms that encourage technology adoption and behavioral change through political and social action (Millot & Maïzi, 2021). Limiting analysis to a purely techno-economic perspective yields incomplete trajectories and reduces feasibility. There is a growing consensus that decarbonization strategies must integrate radical techno-economic changes alongside social and political dimensions (Creutzig et al., 2016). A socio-technical perspective is therefore better suited to address the complexity of these challenges (Geels et al., 2018).

Consequently, prospective modeling must account for social aspects to better guide policy for the low-carbon energy transition. Social acceptability is a key factor, as new energy technologies often face public skepticism. For renewable and sustainable energy technologies, acceptance is not guaranteed and depends on multiple factors: fairness in cost and benefit distribution, inclusivity in decision-making, and trust in information and intentions of actors (Wüstenhagen, Wolsink & Bürer, 2007). Social acceptability has been identified as a major barrier in countries pursuing climate mitigation goals (Ellis, Schneider & Wüstenhagen, 2023). The IPCC strongly recommends incorporating acceptability into assessments of decarbonization trajectories (IPCC, 2022).

The concept of social acceptability is often ambiguous due to its multidimensional nature (van Rijnsoever, van Mossel & Broecks, 2015; Emmerich et al., 2020). Debates persist over terminology, particularly between “acceptability” and “acceptance” (Ellis, Schneider & Wüstenhagen, 2023). In this thesis, the term social acceptability is used, defined by Fortin, Fournis & Beaudry (2013) as: “a process of political evaluation of a project involving multiple actors at different scales, through which arrangements and institutional rules are progressively built and recognized as legitimate, consistent with the territory’s vision and development model.” Research shows that acceptability depends on both contextual and psychological factors, shaped by individual and collective values (Perlaviciute & Steg, 2014). While the low-carbon transition is generally positively perceived, specific technologies can face local resistance (Bertsch et al., 2016).

Despite its importance, acceptability is often considered only at the final stage of planning or implementation, if at all (Zaunbrecher & Ziefle, 2016). Recent studies have begun integrating this dimension into prospective models. For example, van der Zwaan, Broecks & Dalla Longa (2022) incorporated public acceptance for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Europe using a bottom-up TIMES-ECN model. They created scenarios showing how public acceptance could constrain CCS deployment, either by limiting installed capacity or delaying introduction. Their results demonstrated that acceptability can critically influence technology development, affecting total system costs between -50 to 800 billion $/year. They also emphasized that future research should account for country-specific variations in acceptance, rather than assuming uniformity. Similarly, Verrier et al. (2022) integrated social factors, including acceptability, in a probabilistic energy system model for the UK residential heating sector. They showed that social factors significantly impact decarbonization trajectories, and the most effective levers combine rapid technology adoption campaigns with accurate risk information and appropriate governmental incentives, including infrastructure scaling support.

However, questions remain about methodology and the possibility of endogenizing acceptability factors. Existing approaches mainly impose technical constraints on deployment, whereas a participatory approach that includes the perspectives of various stakeholders could better capture public sentiment. Further, prospective models could integrate acceptability factors beyond scenarios to influence deployment choices and assess their effects on decarbonization pathways.

Contributions of the Thesis

The growing adoption of alternative and sustainable energy sources has highlighted the crucial role of social acceptability, alongside technological advances. While society commits to environmentally friendly energy solutions, whether these initiatives resonate with communities, populations, and stakeholders becomes increasingly critical. Social acceptability depends not only on technical efficiency and economic viability but also on cultural, ethical, psychological, and socio-political dimensions that vary across geography and time. To better address the challenges of the energy transition, prospective modeling tools must incorporate these social dimensions to inform decision-making more effectively.

This thesis proposes contributions across several research axes. First, it seeks to provide a theoretical contribution by analyzing terminology used to describe actors’ perceptions of decarbonization technologies, clarifying concepts such as acceptability, acceptance, and identifying other relevant terms in the literature. Second, it studies factors influencing social acceptability across different spatio-temporal scales. While global acceptability generally accelerates technology deployment, local acceptability may decline during project implementation, exemplified by the NIMBY phenomenon (“Not In My Backyard”) (Jones & Eiser, 2010; Devine-Wright, 2011; Béhar & Desmoulins, 2014). NIMBY is often linked to self-interest, but resistance can also arise from attachment to place, perceived injustice, or weak territorial governance (Bourdin, 2020; Fofack-Garcia & Flanquart, 2022). The thesis aims to identify factors explaining social acceptability challenges at both global and local levels and distinguish those associated with NIMBY. It also examines how acceptability evolves over time due to social, economic, political, or community changes, as well as project or government actions (Windemer, 2023). A central question is whether financial investments to improve acceptability can be quantified and correlated with subsequent gains in social support.

The second contribution is methodological, focusing on how to integrate social acceptability into TIMES-family prospective models. This could begin by associating deployment costs with risks of non-acceptability to provide a more realistic view of future dynamics. Other factors will be modeled throughout the thesis, aiming to develop an innovative methodology for scenario construction that is more inclusive of stakeholders’ perspectives. Existing studies (van der Zwaan, Broecks & Dalla Longa, 2022) often rely on an engineering logic, limiting the diversity of perspectives. A participatory approach could involve stakeholders directly in scenario definition, better representing public perceptions. Prospective models could thus use co-designed scenarios to define energy targets that incorporate acceptability constraints, leading to more socially aligned, sustainable, and implementable policies and strategies.

The thesis will be developed in three stages:

1. Literature Review: Identify terminology related to social acceptability, analyze definitions in energy and other sectors, and identify factors influencing acceptability across spatio-temporal scales. This includes global versus local perception, NIMBY effects, and contextual, demographic, and psychological factors. The review will also explore potential cost implications of implementing decarbonization projects in low-acceptability areas.
2. Integration into TIMES-EU Models: Study how social acceptability has been considered in existing models, then develop a methodology to integrate acceptability into TIMES-EU. Initially, this could include costs identified in the literature review, accounting for spatial and temporal investment disparities. Further integration will identify limitations and include scenario-building with stakeholder input, involving at least two consultations: the first to validate methodology and build initial scenarios, the second to discuss preliminary results.
3. Finalization and Policy Recommendations: Finalize the methodology to produce decarbonization technology trajectories and propose policies and recommendations aligned with the social acceptability context of the study area.

 

Communications in conferences and seminars: