Looking for shared representations between experts and locals: the case of agrivoltaics in Italy

The innovative feature of agrivoltaic systems is the possibility of combining solar energy production with agronomic production: the photovoltaic modules are placed above the ground, which thus remains free for cultivation or grazing. Agrivoltaics is then judged to be a more sustainable Renewable Energy Technology (RET) than its traditional variant, photovoltaic on agricultural land. Nevertheless, in Italy the full picture of this technology remains uncertain: advanced systems are subsided by the State, but communication initiatives between experts and stakeholders have not received the expected feedback. The goal of this study was to explore which barriers hinder the adoption of agrivoltaics. In particular, we aimed to study the social representations shared by experts, local communities, scientists and decision-makers. We framed our research according to an epistemological framework that lies at the intersection of social representations theory, environmental psychology, and environmental sociology. We adopted a mixed methods approach. Firstly, we investigated how agrivoltaics is represented among the scientific community. To do so, a literature review was conducted on Scopus and Web of Science using the keyword "AGRIVOLTAICS". Secondly, a total of 40 newspaper articles published between 2021 and 2023 were submitted to thematic content analysis. Finally, 13 experts in the agronomic and energy fields were interviewed to probe the strengths and threats of agrivoltaics. Results showed that, in scientific literature, this technology has been discussed from an almost purely engineering point of view to the detriment of the potential contribution of the social sciences. The thematic analysis of newspaper articles highlighted different arguments reflecting the social representations of agrivoltaics risks: economic issues (return on investment and impacts on tourism), perception of environmental risks (insufficient agronomic experimentation and land consumption), sense of place (energy justice and threatened landscape). Transversal to the themes emerged the perceived vagueness concerning the regulatory framework of agrivoltaics. The analysis of the interviews mirrored these themes and captured a few "rhetorical pivots" (thémata) at the core of each argument for (or against) agrivoltaics: economic issues were differently perceived depending on stakeholders’ entrepreneurial innovativeness/conservatism; the impacts on tourism were discussed in terms of loss/enrichment of cultural heritage; insufficient agronomic experimentation referred to the passage/non-passage of agricultural machinery; the theme of land consumption depended on whether rural areas were deemed sufficient/insufficient for meeting the Italian demand of renewable energy; energy justice was tied to the perception of adequacy/inadequacy of the experts involved in the transition; finally, the idea of threatened landscape led to a problem of familiarity/unfamiliarity. Above all, the vagueness of the regulatory framework concealed an issue of defining the sustainability/unsustainability of agrivoltaics systems. Addressing these interpretative nodes with the communities affected by the adoption of agrivoltaics is crucial to fostering its diffusion in the territory. The positioning of stakeholders close to one or the opposite pole of the identities thémata is anchored to their specific expertise. This seems to favour a homogamic communication within each group rather than a dialogical attitude. Therefore, it will be pivotal to foster shared representations and community ownership of agrivoltaic technology.