Myths and Participation Gaps of Renewable Energy Project Resistance in Latvia

Abstract This study examines why renewable energy projects in Latvia face local resistance despite generally high public support for decarbonisation. A mixed-methods approach was applied, combining regulatory and planning system analysis, comparative review of selected EU countries, a national survey (n > 1000), and qualitative stakeholder and focus group insights. The results show clear differences in technology acceptance: solar energy demonstrates high approval across all cases, while energy storage and cogeneration show medium-to-high acceptance. In contrast, wind energy exhibits the lowest and most polarized acceptance levels. Survey and qualitative findings indicate that resistance is not driven by rejection of climate goals, but by three main factors: low trust in institutions, weak procedural justice in planning processes, and widespread misinformation. Empirical evidence reveals that public consultations are often ineffective, characterised by one-directional communication, a lack of facilitation, and a lack of feedback loops. Pilot interventions reveal that structured engagement formats can reduce conflict intensity (from high to medium), improve information clarity (from low to medium–high), and slightly increase trust levels. The study concludes that renewable energy conflicts in Latvia are primarily governance‑ related rather than technological. Improving procedural fairness, transparency, and communication through “myths versus facts” tools and local benefit assessment can significantly enhance public acceptance and support a more socially sustainable energy transition.