Assessing motivations and barriers to renewable energy development: Insights from a survey of municipal decision-makers in Alberta, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal renewable energy development is a component of community energy that remains under-examined. Particularly, within jurisdictions like Alberta, Canada, where fossil fuels remain dominant, transition to decentralized and renewable energy systems can be challenging. To gain a deeper understanding of the motivations and the barriers to building renewable energy projects within municipalities, we utilize a province-wide survey of municipal decision-makers (n = 101). Results are examined through a framework that combines the theory of planned behaviour with transition theory to identify specific motivations and challenges associated with renewable energy development in this jurisdiction. Consistent with other research, results highlight the perception of economic value that encourages municipal renewable development. Key constraints on the development of renewable projects are associated with difficulties in accessing grants, limited support from the provincial government, and a concern about aesthetics and negative impacts on natural landscapes. Results are discussed in the context of published literature on this topic, with insights on the value of this blended theoretical framework for unpacking and understanding constraints and opportunities for renewable energy development at the municipal level.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it