Renewable Energy Plants and Business Models: A New Rural Development Perspective

energies Article Renewable Energy Plants and Business Models: A New Rural Development Perspective María-JoséPrados 1,*, Marta Pallarès-Blanch 2, Ramón García-Marín3and Carolina del Valle 1   Citation: Prados, M.-J.; Pallarès-Blanch, M.; García-Marín, R.; Valle, C.d. Renewable Energy Plants and Business Models: A New Rural Development Perspective. Energies 2021,14, 5438. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en14175438 Academic Editors: Sergio Ulgiati, Marco Casazza and Pedro L. Lomas Received: 8 July 2021 Accepted: 27 August 2021 Published: 1 September 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography and History, University of Seville, 41012 Seville, Spain; [email protected] 2Local Rural Development and Strategic Planning, La Seu d’Urgell, 25710 Lleida, Spain; [email protected] 3Department of Geography, Letters Faculty, University of Murcia, 30001 Murcia, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The paper evaluates the rural development (RD) contribution of local economic activities (LEAs), whether generated or affected by the proximity of renewable energy plants (REPs). The study also informs about LEAs’ role as co-players in the fight against climate change. Semi-structured research interviews have been applied to identify LEAs’ BM (business model) in Andalusia, Murcia, and Catalonia, autonomous communities of Spain. Most LEAs present a BM based on the RE plant, and others do not, but they still contribute to RD, rural communities’ well-being and global sustainability. Results show, first, that certain LEAs, due to their inter-connection with large REPs, can innovate and create a significant number of stable jobs. Second, land leasing to REPs allows for temporary farms’ diversification, which is conditioned to its bargaining power. Third, advice on integration RE projects in RD strategies should be provided. Conclusions suggest the need for new governance to favor energy transition coherent with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Keywords: renewable energy plants; rural development; business model; energy transition; Sustainable Development Goals; rural community well-being; Agenda 2030; renewable energy landscapes; business model for sustainability; scale economies; climate change 1. Introduction Renewable energy (RE) plays an essential role in providing sustainable and clean energy necessary to mitigate climate change and to reduce its consequences on the environment, health and social well-being [ 1 ]. However, the dissemination of RE is not conflict-free. For example, installing renewables in agriculturally impoverished areas in Italy has resulted in a fall in the price of land, which is seen as a signal of what happens when there is no investment in innovation in agriculture [2]. The siting of renewable energy plants (REPs) mainly affects rural areas and rural communities, which bear the resulting impact without any clear compensation. REPs compete with economic activities linked to agricultural production and tourism activities, often based on the semi-natural landscapes and rural heritage [ 3 ]. At the same time, REPs can create positive synergies on the local, social, economic, and entrepreneurial levels [4]. Social sciences research on RE has become essential since the effective transition to RE technologies involves many varied socio-economic, geographic, cultural, and policy factors [ 5 , 6 ]. In addition, the use of qualitative methods has become more prominent in the study of the public acceptance of REs, either through semi-structured interviews that allow the malleability of public opinion to be perceived [ 7 ] or exploratory interviews with institutional stakeholders such as informers from the Enerscape Project [ 8 ]. It has been proven that public acceptance may vary depending on the RE technology and financial compensation systems for the local population, and on other factors such as local development or job creation [ 9 ]. An inclusive and transparent design and place-based planning of Energies 2021,14, 5438. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175438 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2021,14, 5438 2 of 19 REPs have been proven to benefit social participation and support for the energy transition process [ 10 – 14 ]. Therefore, better explanations during RE implementation contribute to acceptance while also engaging the local people in the energy transition by making them active participants. This can explain the progressive incorporation of rural energy cooperatives and energy communities and the reason why they contribute to reductions in energy dependency and energy cost [15–17]. According to the OECD report for 2012 on “Linking renewable energy to rural development”, RE can contribute the following to RD: “increased employment and operation and maintenance jobs; a revitalization of manufacturing business; local entrepreneurship; innovation and new skills and knowledge in local communities; a transformation to more innovative green industries; new revenues for landowners, farmers, and local authorities (through sale of lands, shares, and municipal development funds paid for by developers)” [ 18 ] (p. 2). Thus, the social research into renewable energy landscapes (REL) acceptance should move forward in socio-economic arguments and governance matters, along with other more explored issues, such as the perception of REL. This requires extremely urgent character, given the dire prospects according to the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report [ 19 ] for which it is coherent to force more ambitious objectives to accelerate the energy transition. Given the multidimensionality of the energy issue and the multifunctionality of rural areas, energy policies should consider making rural development (RD) work in compliance with the 17 Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [ 20 ]. Targets in SDG11— Sustainable communities, include, among others: (i) “supporting positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning” [ 21 ]; (ii) “enhancing inclusive and sustainable urbanization and participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management”, and (iii) “strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” [ 21 ]. In addition, the SDG11’s description section states, “Local and regional governments have a wealth of valuable experience in the ‘localization’ of the 2030 Agenda, where they provide leadership in the mobilization of a wide range of stakeholders, the facilitation of bottom-up and inclusive processes, and the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships” [ 21 ]. In the same way, a shift away from purely theoretical renewable locations and scenarios toward a place-based plan approach has been called for [ 22 – 24 ], consistent with the endogenous, bottom-up, and participatory development paradigm in RD [ 25 ]. Recent research has noted a simultaneous deterioration in the effectiveness of achieving the objectives associated with SDGs. The reasons have been linked to actions toward one SDG in any given area having consequences for other SDGs in the same area [ 1 ]. Similarly, efforts aimed at one SDG in one place will influence outcomes in others [ 1 ]. For this reason, several guides have been developed to facilitate and assess SDG implementation in public and private enterprises [ 26 – 28 ]. Likewise, some research offers guidelines on how to raise social acceptance based on local stakeholders’ participation, for example in the case for onshore wind project development in France [ 7 ]. Especially essential is the Green Infrastructure focus implementation in the design of the REPs to make progress in REL acceptance, creating shared value such as the agrophotovoltaic solutions [29]. Consequently, it is imperative to establish sustainable schemes that integrate REPs into the hosting communities seeking a balancing effect among the 17 SDGs. These schemes should be informed on the current central debates on RD: (i) the relevance of inclusivity, despite the difficulty in accomplishing it [ 25 ]; (ii) the need to recognize and transform power relations in rural areas [ 25 ]; (iii) analytical frameworks such as co-developing bottomlinked governance [ 30 ]; and (iv) initiatives based on innovative bottom-up support [ 31 ]. Furthermore, REs deployment, as a core instrument to reach global sustainability or at least progressively move toward it, should avoid spatial divisions, particularly rural-urban division [ 32 ]. That is not only a question of spatial justice but a crucial point to ensure that Energies 2021,14, 5438 3 of 19 this sustainable path is possible, regarding the environmental threats as a consequence of the depopulation of many rural areas [33]. The studies devoted to investigate employment effects from RE deployment [ 34 ] seem to converge in that a well-integrated RE into RD intermediate institutions—such as cooperatives, local governments, and universities—are needed to disseminate reliable information to the rural community and coordinate the engagement of a large number of actors [ 35 , 36 ]. This more favorable regulatory framework for hosting communities should be focused on: (a) enhancing cross-vertical and cross-horizontal institutional collaboration, aimed to overcome traditional sectorialism in policies [ 36 ], (b) counterbalancing the top-down private management and the large international companies regime [ 18 , 29 , 36 – 39 ], and (b) improving the lack of local governments power to negotiate to increase revenues [18,28,40]. The need to boost a prominent role for local and regional governments in shaping a favorable interplay between RE and RD is often highlighted in the literature, which also states that this interplay should be framed with new governance. The revised literature identifies the main following case studies based on the benefits of REPs’s siting in rural areas: (1) the social innovations concerning RE and RD in three rural areas in Italy [ 41 ]; (2) the proposal of a quantitative method measure and allocating the energy potential for renewable-based RD in Romania [ 42 ]; (3) online opinion surveys applied to local government boards designed to estimate the importance of local benefits originating from RE investments in Hungarian rural settlements [ 22 ]; (4) surveys and interviews to explore the perceptions of benefits and challenges of community-based renewables in North Frisia (Germany) [ 43 ]; (5) case studies that make paradigmatic examples known, such as the case of the Danish island of Samsø [ 44 ], (6) systematic literature analyses of rural sustainable development through RE in Romania [ 45 ]; (7) a critical exploration on the synergies and mismatches on the RE and RD conflation in Denmark and Scotland [ 18 ], and (8) the opportunities that wind farms can generate for the case of Galicia [ 40 ]. These studies, among others, offer valuable recommendations for good practices in RE governance in rural areas, while they also lay the foundations for creating a coherent theoretical body. However, methods to evaluate the interdependency relationships between RE technologies and rural communities’ economies from a RD approach are still in a fledgling state. This is despite its importance for understanding the synergies generated by these economies [ 18 , 46 ]. To address this research gap, the paper evaluates the RD contribution of local economic activities (LEAs) generated for or related to REPs in three Spanish rural areas. The research also informs about the LEAs’ role as co-players in the fight against climate change by applying the business model canvas (BMC) framework [47]. Until now, published research on business models (BMs) for RE [ 48 , 49 ] has two main orientations: utility-side [ 50 – 52 ] or customers-side [ 53 ]. The most studied subjects are on the renewable resources and technologies; solar PV, biomass, biogas and biofuel, and on RE usage; electricity (energy efficiency), heat (district heating and cooling systems), and sustainable mobility [ 49 ]. Other issues are reusable sources such as waste, energy community systems and prosumers [ 54 , 55 ]. For developing countries, research is mainly focused on small scale replicable examples [ 56 ] and on social entrepreneurship [ 57 ]. However, no example has been found about BM applied to the LEAs resulting from the RE and RD interaction. The operability of BMs has been addressed in the last years in the so-called business models for sustainability (BMfS), which seek to identify the flows between the created value to the customers, the value captured by the firm, and the value to the natural environment [ 58 ]. The Abdelkafi et al. BMfS conceptualization incorporates sustainability as an integral part of the company’s value proposition and value creation logic as it gives value to the customer, the natural environment, and society [ 58 ]. Evans et al. (2017) [ 59 ] proposed that sustainable business models (SBMs) need to be designed from a systemic perspective, including governance, the natural environment, and sustainable value flows among the multiple stakeholders. Marczewska and Kostrzewski propose that the BM approach should adapt to the needs derived from compliance with the SDGs [ 60 ]. Consequently, authors Energies 2021,14, 5438 4 of 19 include the SDGs compliance into the analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and impacts [61], resulting from the LEAs’ interaction with the REPs. 2. Background Spain has pioneered RE development to comply with the European Union’s RE directives. The results have been promising thus far, despite the cutbacks that affected the sector as a consequence of the 2008 economic crisis and the stagnation in the RE development due to the type of regulation and policies during the 2011–2019 governments [ 62 , 63 ]. The RE sector is currently growing due to central government initiatives to increase societal involvement and secure legal guarantees for promoters. Royal Decree-Act 15/2018 of 5th October regulated new types of production and consumption and promoted more active social participation in the RE transition [ 64 ]. To date, RE cooperatives have been created, with one case experiencing a tremendous membership growth and territorial spread [ 63 ]. Despite the contemporary REs cooperative movement is at an early stage of development in Spain, they steer learning processes and empower their consumer communities and population toward energy sovereignty awareness [37,63,65]. The Integrated National Plan for Energy and Climate 2021–2030 envisages a four-times increase in the percentage of RE use [ 66 ]. This will be possible as the result of Spanish energy policy opting for a free competition regime in which electricity generation and supply activities operate in a stable framework for investment in renewables [62,67]. The study areas are located in the south and east regions of the country with a heavy presence of onshore wind and photovoltaic plants and a much smaller number of solar thermal plants. At the north, a hydroelectric power plant, representative of first-generation RE technologies, has also been selected for this research (see Figure 1). Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18 perspective, including governance, the natural environment, and sustainable value flows among the multiple stakeholders. Marczewska and Kostrzewski propose that the BM approach should adapt to the needs derived from compliance with the SDGs [60]. Consequently, authors include the SDGs compliance into the analysis of the economic, environmental and social benefits and impacts [61], resulting from the LEAs’ interaction with the REPs. 2. Background Spain has pioneered RE development to comply with the European Union’s RE directives. The results have been promising thus far, despite the cutbacks that affected the sector as a consequence of the 2008 economic crisis and the stagnation in the RE development due to the type of regulation and policies during the 2011–2019 governments [62,63]. The RE sector is currently growing due to central government initiatives to increase societal involvement and secure legal guarantees for promoters. Royal Decree-Act 15/2018 of 5th October regulated new types of production and consumption and promoted more active social participation in the RE transition [64]. To date, RE cooperatives have been created, with one case experiencing a tremendous membership growth and territorial spread [63]. Despite the contemporary REs cooperative movement is at an early stage of development in Spain, they steer learning processes and empower their consumer communities and population toward energy sovereignty awareness [37,63,65]. The Integrated National Plan for Energy and Climate 2021–2030 envisages a fourtimes increase in the percentage of RE use [66]. This will be possible as the result of Spanish energy policy opting for a free competition regime in which electricity generation and supply activities operate in a stable framework for investment in renewables [62,67]. The study areas are located in the south and east regions of the country with a heavy presence of onshore wind and photovoltaic plants and a much smaller number of solar thermal plants. At the north, a hydroelectric power plant, representative of first-generation RE technologies, has also been selected for this research (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Study areas and renewable energy plants (REPs). Figure 1. Study areas and renewable energy plants (REPs). Energies 2021,14, 5438 5 of 19 2.1. The “Campiña of Sevilla” The “Campiña of Sevilla” (CS) is a territorial unit (5000 km 2 ) in the central-western area of Andalusia. The terrain is moderate, with hills between 0 and 600 m in height. Temperatures are mild and rainfall irregular. The soil is fertile and deep, which makes the non-irrigated agriculture the most productive on the Iberian Peninsula [ 68 ]. Large estates of cereals, especially barley, have traditionally been the most typical types of farms with olive groves and localized vineyards on the steepest slopes [ 68 ]. Economic activity is diversified between agro-industry, mainly based on olive trees for the production of olive oil and valueadded table olives, the construction industry (manufacture of materials and logistics for public works), and tourism based on the value of the area’s architectural heritage [ 69 ]. The CS’s position in the middle of Andalusia region has led to create agricultural settlements of between 20,000 and 30,000 inhabitants. CS represents the essence of Andalusia; however, it is now faced with the progressive advancement of large-scale REPs and future projects that consolidate wide REL. The first wind projects were rolled out at the beginning of the 21st century with support from a subsidy policy and the backing of large international corporations [ 37 , 38 , 62 , 63 , 70 ], but with the opposition of civil society, which felt that it had not been given due consideration in the planning process. Photovoltaic and solar thermal plants are more recent and, to date, have not been the target of any opposition. 2.2. The Region of Murcia (RM) The rural areas of the region of Murcia (RM) present dispersed population nuclei of fewer than 1000 inhabitants [ 71 ]. There are two models of agricultural economics: irrigated areas with wide expanses of cropland and a broad range of fruit and vegetable produce that is well established in the national and international markets, and non-irrigated areas (mainly cereals, olives, almonds, and carob) run by farms that are much less competitive [ 71 ]. The five interviews conducted in RM are located in non-irrigated areas, although they belong to two regions that both have important irrigated areas. The economy of the Mula River area, which is a mixture of traditional fertile market gardens and rough barren karst landscapes, is mainly agriculture-based and underpinned by new technologies, and the Mula Market Gardens Irrigation Modernization Plan [ 72 ]. The “Campo de Cartagena” area is a plain that, at the end of the 20th century, the Tagus-Segura water transfer made its agriculture among the most productive and profitable in all Europe [ 72 ]. However, the remaining unirrigated areas have experienced a major population exodus due to the offer of employment in tourism in the coastal resorts [ 72 , 73 ] and in industry, mainly in the area of Cartagena, where new petroleum-based chemical industries have been set up since the end of the 20th century [ 74 ]. The region’s great potential for solar energy has resulted in numerous areas of unirrigated farmland being turned over to RE generation [ 75 ]. The energy sector is thus becoming a first-order resource for the development of the rural environment in the RM thanks to the creation of jobs and improvements to the low incomes of the rural population in low-yield agricultural areas [75]. 2.3. The High Catalan Pyrenees-Catalonia (HCP) The High Catalan Pyrenees (HCP) is the highland region of Catalonia, with a population density of 12.6 and 242.3 inhabitants/km 2 respectively. The 20th century saw a deep change in the region’s socio-economic structure from a subsistence and self-sufficiency economy to the service sector [ 76 ]. The remaining farms in the highlands, such as in the “Vall Fosca” valley, specialize in extensive pasture for meat production, which are progressively converting to organic farming. Nearly half (46.6%) of the HCP area ( 5775.62 km2 ) is regulated as a Natural Protected Area. The many seminatural spaces have played a key role in attracting and retaining people for employment in the tourist industry, mainly in ski resorts and their associated second homes [ 76 ]. As “Vall Fosca” is not located near the fast access route to the ski resorts, the landscape and the essence of the rural mountains have endured. The failure of a ski resort macroproject [ 77 , 78 ] triggered the creation of specialized BM under the hallmark of sustainable development. The current tourist supply Energies 2021,14, 5438 6 of 19 and cultural assets are also taking advantage of the hydroelectric landscapes, which have been particularly important for the west part of the region since the end of the 19th century, when the power plants were built to address the emerging new stage of Barcelona’s industrial development [79]. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Gathering and Selection of Information The main primary source of information for this research paper comes from semistructured research interviews (hereinafter, interviews) that have been designed to elicit quantitative and qualitative data to obtain LEAs’ information about (a) geographic features, (b) economic specialization, (c) the financial benefits and losses, (d) customer expectations, (e) new products or services, (f) marketing, (g) success factors, (h) obstacles, (i) institutional environment, (j) policy conditions, (k) individual decisions, (l) environmental impacts, and (m) social benefits. The interviews lasted between around one hour and a half, depending on the amount of information provided by the interviewed. Often, the interview was addressed in two rounds, and on occasion, phone calls had to be made to verify or complete the answers. The first phase of the selection criteria for this primary research was designed to (a) offer an analytical framework comprising a variety of the most representative RE technologies in Spain: onshore wind, hydroelectric, photovoltaic, and solar thermal (see Table 1); (b) consider areas with large onshore REPs; (c) consider only areas with a preexisting agricultural use, and (d) include a broad variety of REL together with (e) including different study areas with their own specific RD dynamics. Table 1. Renewable energy plants (REPs). Study Areas RE Plant RE Technology Installed Capacity Area Year Commissioned Campiña of Seville, Andalusia (CS) Cantalejos Wind On-shore 14.00 MW 66 has. 2009 Gemasolar Solar Thermal 19.90 MW 195 has. 2010 Region of Murcia (RM) Fuente Álamo Photovoltaic 34.00 MW 84 has. 2008 High Catalan Pyrenees (HCP) Capdella Hydropower Hydropower 25.00 MW 6 has. 1914 The Capdella hydroelectric power station is the largest plant of a group of 5 power stations in the Vall Fosca valley in the HCP that operate with water from 30 lakes in an area declared a National Park in 1955 [ 79 ]. Although the valley essentially continues to depend on agriculture and livestock after the construction work had concluded, permanent jobs linked to the operation of hydroelectric power stations were created but later lost when the plants were automated in the 1980s [ 79 ]. The LEAs studied in HCP comprise: Casa Leonardo ecotourist accommodation, which was established when the plant was being constructed, and the Capdella Hydropower Museum, which is based on the conservation and display of hydroelectric tangible and intangible heritage. The Cantalejos onshore wind plant in the CS region is in a rural area with agricultural and second residence functions. The LEA related to it is one rural accommodation service Las Viñas. The Gemasolar solar thermal plant in the CS region. The LEAs related to the solar thermal plant include the Monclova farm (5500 ha in size), which covers a broad set of economic activities, and two SMEs (Fermupe and Ecilimp), which have emerged for the start-up and maintenance of the plant. The Fuente Álamo photovoltaic plant, in the RM, is located on farms (between 2 and 25 ha) with their land being leased to the energy company for the estimated lifespan of the photovoltaic solar plants. The area’s proximity to the ports of Cartagena and Escombreras makes energy transport viable. Energies 2021,14, 5438 7 of 19 All the REPs belong to large corporations that operate on an international scale in many countries and, therefore, have a complex business architecture. The interviews with its representatives offered general technical data on the implementation of REPs and their growth prospects. The second phase of the selection criteria consisted of identifying the LEAs’ cases of study. Here, authors explored the areas where the REPs were located in order to identify LEAs closely related to the plants at both levels, physically and socio-economically, and using the snowballing procedure. For this reason, empirical research also includes interviews with professionals in the RE sector (mainly engineers) and mayors or other local politicians who provided advice and, in certain cases, help for contacting the interviewed stakeholders representing LEAs in the three study areas. The interviews were conducted by the authors to include direct observation as part of the inductive and exploratory process. The authors have fulfilled the selection criteria conditions with 11 case studies. Other case studies were eventually discarded for technical reasons, such as a lack of detailed information in the interviews and the fact that other questionnaires did not contribute any new profiles. Case studies involve six sets of business actors: farmers who own the land where the plants are sited, second residents, hotels and accommodation services, cultural and heritage public services, and SMEs. Table 2shows the archetypal LEAs used as BM study cases. In the case of second home residents, it is relevant to explain that an owner sold the house during the fieldwork period due to the changes in the landscape as a consequence of the wind plant. Table 2. Local economic activities (LEAs). LEAs No. of Questionnaires Study Area Activity Average No. of Jobs Average Turnover RE Use Farms 1 CS Monclova >10 >200,000 Yes 5RM El Malagueño 1>10,000 No Hondo de la Venta La Pinilla Los Charcos Los Santos SME 2CS Fermupe >35 >500,000 No Ecilimp Tourist and Cultural Services 1 CS Las Viñas >2 >5000 Yes 2HCP Casa Leonardo >3 >500,000 Yes Capdella Hydropower Museum 3.2. Method The research tool to obtain information on the study cases is the qualitative research technique based on semi-structured research interviews. The interviews were designed containing the BMC scheme [ 47 ], considering the triple-layer BMC [ 61 ], which adds the environmental and social aspects of a business to the economic facet. The analysis of the LEAs’ business models involved a detailed longitudinal assessment of the information collected from the interviews. First, the interview answers were coded according to the nine BMC building blocks, as proposed by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010), which are briefly introduced in Table 3. Second, a key conclusion was assigned to each LEAs’ BM, according to the 11 categories in the value proposition (see Table 3). The LEAs’ BM can be grouped in four out of the 11 categories. Third, the key conclusion or final value proposition of the LEAs’ BM was interpreted concerning the RE plant, and on the way that the LEAs contributed to the RD of the area. Fourth, the research results were Energies 2021,14, 5438 8 of 19 analyzed according to the conceptualization provided from the literature revision. The results discussion is two-fold; it is based on the SDGs interplay, and contrasts with the theoretical framework on RE and RD. Table 3. Business Model Canvas: nine interconnected components. OFFER CUSTOMERS FINANCING Key resources Assets required (physical, intellectual, human, and financial) to make a BM work Customer relationship Between LEAs and customer segments (personal assistance; dedicated personal assistance; self-service; automated services; communities, and value co-creation with customers) Sales Channels LEAs’ delivery of products and services to customers Key activities Main activities. They include problem solving and networking Customer segments Groups of organizations targeted and served by companies (mass market; niche market; segmented; diversified, and multi-side markets Revenue stream Company revenues/profits from customer segment Key partnership Supplier and partner networks. They include LEAs’ relationships to optimize the allocation of resources and activities, risk reduction, and the acquisition of resources and activities to minimize investment by sharing externalities - Cost structure Costs entailed in LEAs’ activities. Costs can be cost-driven or value-driven depending on product cost or whether the product is exclusive - VALUE PROPOSITION Newness, performance, customization, “getting the job done”, design, brand or status, product prices, cost reduction, risk reduction, accessibility, and usability. - LEAs’ product and services bundle that creates value for customer segments. 4. Results Different LEAs’ value propositions can be identified depending on whether the RE plant is treated as a customer or the customers are from outside the RE sector (see Table 4). Table 4. Summary of LEAs and their value propositions for the RE sector. Value Proposition Accessibility Customization Key resources Flat south-facing lands Experience of working with public sector Extensive unbroken surface area Quick professional response Key activities Diversification through land lease Adaptation Key partnerships None RE sector networks Customer segment RE investment groups RE sector at international level Customer relationships Individual Individual Channels RE investment groups RE sector networking Revenue streams Land lease Sale of prototypes Leasing of machines and personnel Consultancy services Cost structure Assuming the cost RE plant use of roadways, Access to water and Logistics support Research and knowledge transfer Key conclusion Low price Performance Energies 2021,14, 5438 9 of 19 4.1. Value Propositions for the RE Sector 4.1.1. Accessibility as Value The economic activities categorized as accessibility patterns correspond to farms in RM (5 interviews) and CS (1 interview) (see Table 2). Their BMs are underpinned by the availability of suitable land close to the electric grid as the main key resource. The photovoltaic plants in RM are net consumers of solar and surface radiation. These are also requisites for the solar thermal plant in CS. The key resource that all the surveyed farms have available is low-yield land and this is what determines its being leased out for the installation of an RE plant. In one case, “Los Santos” farm in RM, the farm’s land is leased to the photovoltaic plant in its entirety. In the other five interviewed farms, key activities are diversified and there is still ongoing agricultural activity (see Table 2). The REP’s interest in paying at low prices is imposed in the face of the RM farmers’ lack of organizational structures and support networks. In contrast, the CS farm, despite not having any formal key partnerships, starts from a better negotiating position due to the availability of a greater amount of land. This gives the farm the opportunity to conduct further trials with other renewable technologies and obtain a share in the profits from RE. The customer segment of all RM farms is composed of a single actor (the RE plant), whose loyalty is gained through 25-year leases and the ability to discharge to the grid. The surveyed RM farms accept this commercial relationship as a way to obtain complementary revenue and reduce risks. In the case of the “La Pinilla”, farmland renting at the moment is seen as a proof of concept. The interviews showed that farms’ relationships with customers and the RE plant are individual and changing and that their constraint to negotiate on revenue streams does not allow reducing their cost structure. The shared use of country roads, access to water, and logistics support is an added cost that the farmer-leaser usually assumes. In summary, the value proposition of these RM farms is the offer of their product at a low price. Farmers obtain a stable income to compensate fluctuations in the price of agricultural produce. In contrast, the large and continuous surface available in the CS state allows operation with different RE companies and RE technologies as a strategy to reduce dependency and risk. 4.1.2. Customization of Products and Services Customization implies that economic activities generate business in response to specific demands from the RE sector. This is the case of SMEs that have developed alongside and supported the CS solar thermal plant’s construction process (see Table 4). These study cases are rooted in the local economy and accessibility and a quality-cost ratio, having turned the tailoring of products and services to the specific needs of Gemasolar into their main asset. Such is the case of Ecilimp, a company consolidated in the waste recycling and cleaning services sector with a large volume of business. It is also the case of the Fermupe company, which deals in private security for civil construction works but was affected by the fall-out from the economic crisis. These companies’ key resources are underpinned by previous experience of working within the public sector. The professional relationship is initiated either by the companies approaching the RE developers or because they are “headhunted” on account of their experience in the sector. They are family businesses in which dedication, a trust relationship, proximity, and adaptation of the service are the main key resources. In the case of Ecilimp, there are two generations of the family, the second of which has been well-trained; thus, they combine experience and soundness as well as the ability to innovate to address customers’ needs. The Gemasolar RE plant is not the only customer, despite being the largest. These companies’ ability to adapt to REPs has led them to specialize in maintenance services for solar plants in a business that currently extends throughout Spain, Morocco, South Africa, and Israel. There is no doubt that the generation of the customer’s trust creates a form of partnership. They recognize that the customer, the RE plant, is their main ally in maintaining and growing the development of their activity. Ecilimp is currently involved in publicly funded research and transfer Energies 2021,14, 5438 16 of 19 Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Jose Miguel Díaz Borrego and Alba Ruiz Diez for supporting the implementation of the present research with the tabulation and processing of semi-structured research interviews. Special thanks to Alba Ruiz Diez for authoring the Figures. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Abbreviations BM, business model; BMfS, business model for sustainability; CS, Campiña of Sevilla; HCP, High Catalan Pyrenees; LEAs, local economic activities; RE, renewable Energy; REPs, renewable energy plants; RD, rural development; RM, Murcia Region; SBMs, sustainable business models; SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals SMEs, small medium enterprises. References 1. Sompolska-Rzechuła, A.; Kurdy ´ s-Kujawska, A. Toward Understanding Interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: The Role of Climate-Well-Being Linkages. Experiences of EU Countries. Energies 2021,14, 2025. [CrossRef] 2. Sacchelli, S.; Garegnani, G.; Geri, F.; Grilli, G.; Paletto, A.; Zambelli, P.; Vettorato, D. Trade-off between photovoltaic systems installation and agricultural practices on arable lands: An environmental and socio-economic impact analysis for Italy. Land Use Policy 2016,56, 90–99. [CrossRef] 3. Poggi, F.; Firmino, A.; Amado, M. Planning renewable energy in rural areas: Impacts on occupation and land use. Energy 2018 , 155, 630–640. [CrossRef] 4. Del Rio, P.; Burguillo, M. An empirical analysis of the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009,13, 1314–1325. [CrossRef] 5. Sovacool, B.K. Diversity: Energy studies need social science. Nature 2014,511, 529–530. [CrossRef] 6. Suškeviˇcs, M.; Eiter, S.; Martinat, S.; Stober, D.; Vollmer, E.; de Boer, C.L.; Buchecker, M. Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation? Land Use Policy 2019 ,81, 311–323. [CrossRef] 7. Enevoldsen, P.; Sovacool, B.K. Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,53, 178–184. [CrossRef] 8. Rizzo, A. Managing the energy transition in a tourism-driven economy: The case of Malta. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017 ,33, 126–133. [CrossRef] 9. Ribeiro, F.; Ferreira, P.; Araújo, M.; Braga, A.C. Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal. Energy 2014 ,69, 39–50. [CrossRef] 10. Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Tangeland, T. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy Policy 2013,58, 1–5. [CrossRef] 11. Bidwell, D. Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions. Nat. Energy 2016,1, 16051. [CrossRef] 12. Chilvers, J.; Longhurst, N. Participation in Transition(s): Reconceiving Public Engagements in Energy Transitions as Co-Produced, Emergent and Diverse. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016,18, 585–607. [CrossRef] 13. Raven, R.P.J.M.; Mourik, R.M.; Feenstra, C.F.J.; Heiskanen, E. Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: Toward a toolkit methodology for project managers. Energy 2009,34, 564–574. [CrossRef] 14. Ajaz, W.; Bernell, D. Microgrids and the transition toward decentralized energy systems in the United States: A Multi-Level Perspective. Energy Policy 2021,149, 112094. [CrossRef] 15. Caramizaru, A.; Uihlein, A. Energy Communities: An Overview of Energy and Social Innovation; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. 16. Späth, L.; Scolobig, A. Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: The case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017,23, 189–198. [CrossRef] 17. Jasinski, J.; Kozakiewicz, M.; Sołtysik, M. Determinants of Energy Cooperatives’ Development in Rural Areas—Evidence from Poland. Energies 2021,14, 319. [CrossRef] 18. Tolnov, L.; Rudolph, D. Renewable Energy for sustainable development: Synergies and mismatches. Energy Policy 2020 , 138, 111289. [CrossRef] 19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, A., Pirani, S.L., Connors, C., Péan, S., Berger, N., Caud, Y., Chen, L., Goldfarb, M.I., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021; in press. 20. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 2016. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ (accessed on 6 June 2021). Energies 2021,14, 5438 17 of 19 21. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development. Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/topics/sustainable-cities-and-human-settlements (accessed on 3 July 2021). 22. Honvári, P.; SzörényinéKukorelli, I. Examining the renewable energy investments in Hungarian rural settlements: The gained local benefits and the aspects of local community involvement. Eur. Countrys. 2018,10, 74–88. [CrossRef] 23. Ntanos, S.; Skordoulis, M.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Arabatzis, G.; Chalikias, M.; Galatsidas, S.; Batzios, A.; Katsarou, A. Renewable energy and economic growth: Evidence from European countries. Sustainability 2018,10, 2626. [CrossRef] 24. Vasta, A.; Figueiredo, E.; Valente, S.; Vihinen, H.; Nieto-Romero, M. Place-based policies for sustainability and rural development: The case of a Portuguese village “Spun” in traditional Linen. Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 289. [CrossRef] 25. Bock, B.B. Rural Futures: Inclusive Rural Development in Times of Urbanisation; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [CrossRef] 26. Briones Alonso, E.; Molenaers, N.; Vandenbroucke, S.; Van Ongevalle, J. SDG Compass Guide—Practical Frameworks and Tools to Operationalise Agenda 2030; HIVA—KU Leuven: Leuven, Belgium, 2021. 27. SDG COMPASS. The Guide for Business Action on the SDGs; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): Amsterdam, The Netherlands; United Nations (UN): New York, NY, USA; World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD): Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. 28. Independent Group of Scientists Appointed by the Secretary-General. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now—Science for Achieving Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. 29. Semeraro, T.; Aretano, R.; Barca, A.; Pomes, A.; Del Giudice, C.; Gatto, E.; Lenucci, M.; Buccolieri, R.; Emmanuel, R.; Gao, Z.; et al. Conceptual Framework to Design Green Infrastructure: Ecosystem Services as an Opportunity for Creating Shared Value in Ground Photovoltaic Systems. Land 2020,9, 238. [CrossRef] 30. Castro-Arce, K.; Vanclay, F. Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. J. Rural Stud. 2020,74, 45–54. [CrossRef] 31. Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E. Supporting bottom-up innovative initiatives throughout the spiral of innovations: Lessons from rural Greece. J. Rural Stud. 2020,73, 176–185. [CrossRef] 32. Bridge, G.; Bouzarovski, S.; Bradshaw, M.; Eyre, N. Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 2013,53, 331–340. [CrossRef] 33. Madanipour, A.; Shucksmith, M.; Brooks, E. The concept of spatial justice and the European Union’s territorial cohesion. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2021, 1–18. [CrossRef] 34. Meyer, I.; Sommer, M.W. Employment effects of renewable energy deployment-a review. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2016 ,19, 217–245. [CrossRef] 35. Lerman, L.V.; Gerstlberger, W.; Lima, M.F.; Frank, A.G. How governments, universities, and companies contribute to renewable energy development? A municipal innovation policy perspective of the triple helix. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021 ,71, 101854. [CrossRef] 36. OECD. Linking Renewable Energy to Rural Development; Executive Summary; OECD Green Growth Studies; OECD: Paris, France, 2012. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Policy%20BriefJD%208%20june.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021). 37. Belda-Miquel, S.; Pellicer-Sifres, V.; Boni, A. Exploring the Contribution of Grassroots Innovations to Justice: Using the Capability Approach to Normatively Address Bottom-Up Sustainable Transitions Practices. Sustainability 2020,12, 3617. [CrossRef] 38. Espinosa, V.I.; Peña-Ramos, J.A.; Recuero-López, F. The Political Economy of Rent-Seeking: Evidence from Spain’s Support Policies for Renewable Energy. Energies 2021,14, 4197. [CrossRef] 39. Krog, L.; Sperling, K.; Lund, H. Barriers and recommendations to innovative ownership models for wind power. Energies 2018 , 11, 2602. [CrossRef] 40. Copena, D.; Simón, X. Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,95, 38–47. [CrossRef] 41. Magnani, N.; Maretti, M.; Salvatore, R.; Scotti, I. Ecopreneurs, rural development and alternative socio-technical arrangements for community renewable energy. J. Rural Stud. 2017,100, 33–41. [CrossRef] 42. Benedek, J.; Sebestyén, T.T.; Bartók, B. Evaluation of renewable energy sources in peripheral areas and renewable energy-based rural development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,90, 516–535. [CrossRef] 43. Süsser, D.; Kannen, A. ‘Renewables? Yes, please!’: Perceptions and assessment of community transition induced by renewableenergy projects in North Frisia. Sustain. Sci. 2017,12, 563–578. [CrossRef] 44. Sperling, K. How does a pioneer community energy project succeed in practice? The case of the Samsø Renewable Energy Island. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,71, 884–897. [CrossRef] 45. Aceleanu, M.I.; S , erban, A.C.; T , îrcă, D.M.; Badea, L. The rural sustainable development through renewable energy. The case of Romania. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2018,24, 1408–1434. [CrossRef] 46. Kilinc-Ata, N.; Tanriover, B.; Ata, N.; Tanriover, B. A Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Renewable Energy Deployment on Sustainability: The Turkish Case. In Value Sharing for Sustainable and Inclusive Development; Risso, M., Testarmata, S., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 309–322. Energies 2021,14, 5438 18 of 19 47. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challangers; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. 48. Alharahs, O.R.; Alharahsheh, H.H. Assessment of Different Business Models for Renewable Energy. South. Asian Res. J. Bus. Manag. 2019,1, 178–181. [CrossRef] 49. Engelken, M.; Römer, B.; Drescher, M.; Welpe, I.M.; Picot, A. Comparing drivers. barriers, and opportunities of business models for renewable energies: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,60, 795–809. [CrossRef] 50. Hellström, M.; Tsvetkova, A.; Gustafsson, M.; Wikström, K. Collaboration mechanisms for business models in distributed energy ecosystems. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,102, 226–236. [CrossRef] 51. Mazur, C.; Hall, S.; Hardy, J.; Workman, M. Technology is not a Barrier: A Survey of Energy System Technologies Required for Innovative Electricity Business Models Driving the Low Carbon Energy Revolution. Energies 2019,12, 428. [CrossRef] 52. Richter, M. Utilities’ business models for renewable energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012 ,16, 2483–2493. [CrossRef] 53. Behrangrad, M. A review of demand side management business models in the electricity market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,47, 270–283. [CrossRef] 54. Brown, D.; Hall, S.M.; Davis, M.E. Prosumers in the post subsidy era: An exploration of new prosumer business models in the UK. Energy Policy 2019,135, 110984. [CrossRef] 55. Rodríguez-Molina, J.; Martínez-Núñez, M.; Martínez, J.F.; Pérez-Aguiar, W. Business models in the smart grid: Challenges, opportunities and proposals for prosumer profitability. Energies 2014,7, 6142–6171. [CrossRef] 56. Kolk, A.; Buuse, D. In search of viable business models for development: Sustainable energy in developing countries. Corp. Govern. 2012,12, 551–567. [CrossRef] 57. Wakkee, I.; Barua, R.; Van Beukering, P. What about the entrepreneur? How static business models drive and hinder the development of self-sustaining local energy access ventures. J. Dev. Entrep. 2014,19, 1450014. [CrossRef] 58. Abdelkafi, N.; Täuscher, K. Business Models for Sustainability from a System Dynamics Perspective. Org. Environ. 2016 ,29, 74–96. [CrossRef] 59. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C. Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Toward a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017 ,26, 597–608. [CrossRef] 60. Marczewska, M.; Kostrzewski, M. Sustainable Business Models: A Bibliometric Performance Analysis. Energies 2020 ,13, 6062. [CrossRef] 61. Joyce, A.; Paquin, R. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,135, 1474–1486. [CrossRef] 62. Espejo, C.; Aparicio, A.E. La producción de electricidad con energía solar fotovoltaica en España en el siglo XXI. Rev. Estud. Andal. 2020,39, 66–93. [CrossRef] 63. Capellán-Pérez, I.; Campos-Celador, Á.; Terés-Zubiaga, J. Renewable Energy Cooperatives as an instrument toward the energy transition in Spain. Energy Policy 2018,123, 215–229. [CrossRef] 64. BOE. Royal Decree 15/2018 of October 5th (BOE-A-2018-13593), Núm. 242 of 6 October 2018. Available online: https://www.boe. es/eli/es/rdl/2018/10/05/ (accessed on 10 August 2021). (In Spanish). 65. Viardot, E. The role of cooperatives in overcoming the barriers to adoption of renewable energy. Energy Policy 2014 ,63, 756–764. [CrossRef] 66. Integrated National Plan for Energy and Climate 2021–2030. Available online: https://www.miteco.gob.es/images/es/ pnieccompleto_tcm30-508410.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2019). 67. Sorman, A.H.; García-Muros, X.; Pizarro-Irizar, C.; González-Eguino, M. (Lost (and found) in transition: Expert stakeholder insights on low-carbon energy transitions in Spain. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020,64, 101414. [CrossRef] 68. Zoido, F.; Rodríguez, J. Catálogos de Paisajes de la Provincia de Sevilla; Centro de Estudios Paisaje y Terrirorio, Consejería de Medio Ambiente: Sevilla, Spain, 2015. 69. Fernández Cacho, S.; Fernández Salinas, V.; Hernández León, E.; López Martín, E.; Quintero-Morón, V.; Rodrigo Cámara, J.M.; Zarza Balluguera, D. Paisajes y Patrimonio Cultural en Andalucía. Tiempo, Usos e Imágenes; PH Cuadernos 27; Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2010; Volume 1. 70. Delicado, A.; Junqueira, L.; Fonseca, S.; Truninger, M.; Silva, L. Not in Anyone’s Backyard? Civil Society Attitudes toward Wind Power at the National and Local Levels in Portugal. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2014,27, 49–71. [CrossRef] 71. Gil, E. Los paisajes agrarios de la Región de Murcia. Pap. Geogr. 2006,43, 19–30. 72. Caballero, A.; Romero, A.; Espinosa, I. Cambios paisajísticos y efectos medioambientales debidos a la agricultura intensiva en la Comarca de Campo de Cartagena-Mar Menor (Murcia). Estud. Geogr. 2015,76, 473–498. [CrossRef] 73. Ortín, J.; Cano, G. Territorio y población en la comarca de Cartagena-La Unión. 1700–2011. Rev. Murc. Antropol. 2011,18, 43–64. 74. Espejo, C.; Serrano, J.M.; Parra, A. La industria de refino del petróleo en Cartagena (España), 1950–2015. Anales Geogr. Univ. Complut. 2017,37, 371–398. [CrossRef] 75. Gómez, M.D.; García, M.S.; Ruiz, E. Situations and problems of renewable energy in the Region of Murcia, Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010,14, 1253–1262. [CrossRef] Energies 2021,14, 5438 19 of 19 76. Pallarès-Blanch, M. Women’s eco-entrepreneurship: A pathway of possible in community resilience? AGER. J. Depop. Rural Dev. Stud. 2015,18, 65–89. [CrossRef] 77. Rallo, E.; Cosano, R.; Cabés, D.; Monés, N. Cambios Morfológicos en el Valle de Filià(Vall Fosca, Pallars Jussà) entre los años 2005 y 2009. In Proceedings of the XII Reunión Nacional de Geomorfología, Santander, Spain, 17–21 September 2012; pp. 679–682. 78. Novau, A. Bases, Criteris i Principis de RestauracióAmbiental i Paisatgística del Projecte Vallfosca Mountain Resort. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 2014. 79. Tarraubella, X. Els aprofitaments hidroelèctrics pirinencs i el seu impacte al Pallars. Quad. Hist. 2013,19, 137–156. 80. Serrano, D.; Margalida, A.; Pérez-García, J.M.; Juste, J.; Traba, J.; Valera, F.; Carrete, M.; Aihartza, J.; Real, J.; Mañosa, S.; et al. Renewables in Spain threaten biodiversity. Science 2020,370, 1282–1283. [PubMed]