Renewable Energy Projects on the Indigenous Estate: Identifying Risks and Opportunities of Utility-Scale and Dispersed Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australia’s Pilbara and Kimberley regions have very high rates of Indigenous land tenure, whilst hosting some of world’s best co-located solar and wind energy resources. Simultaneously, technological advances in energy transmission and distribution raises the possibility of renewable energy export into Southeast Asia. This paper builds upon previous work (O’Neill, L., Thorburn, K. and Hunt, J. (2019), Ensuring Indigenous benefit from large-scale renewable energy projects: Drawing on experience from extractive industry agreement making, Working Paper No. 127, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra) in considering the opportunities and risks of renewable energy developments for Indigenous communities in these regions. It considers renewable energy developments at two different scales – utility-scale and smaller dispersed models, finding that communities are more likely to obtain broader social and economic benefits from developments in which they have a significant financial stake and have power over aspects of development. Proponents of utility-scale developments may negotiate agreements to offer Indigenous people access to energy, financial compensation for land use, or a stake in ownership. Yet, in considering research from the extractives industry in relation to agreement making we find that broader social and economic benefits for communities are often less than predicted. Research from Canada that looks at the potential for Indigenous ownership of smaller scale renewable energy developments to address local need and benefit, highlights the importance of First Nations’ voices in discussions of regional economic development associated with the coming energy transition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".