Why does community ownership foster greater acceptance of renewable projects? Investigating energy justice explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fact that community ownership increases the social acceptability of renewable energy projects is well established, but there is a lack of empirical evidence to explain why this is the case. This study examines whether energy justice factors (fair involvement, fair distribution of benefits and perceived impacts from wind turbines) can help explain this relationship, whether these factors are interrelated, and whether different ownership structures (community, shared or private ownership) change these associations. Using a postal survey of residents in Scotland (n = 320), the study employs a novel method, Multigroup-Structural Equation Modelling, to investigate these questions. This modelling reveals that acceptance of these projects was influenced by factors of energy justice (i.e. fair involvement, fair benefits and perceived impacts), but the influence from each factor depended on the ownership structure. Specifically, those near the community-owned project prioritised involvement, those near the privately-owned valued fair benefits, and those near the shared ownership prioritised both. By examining the relationships amongst energy justice factors, the real-life complexity of people’s responses to wind energy projects is revealed, whereby factors can have knock-on effects. Importantly, this study finds that the community and shared ownership projects fostered greater community acceptance than the privately-owned because they had more instances where fair involvement influenced other factors, which led to greater overall acceptance. Although community involvement may seem time-consuming, a more inclusive approach can prevent long-term issues caused by local opposition.Policy Highlights Community ownership of renewable energy projects leads to greater acceptance by local residents, as long as the projects meet their expectations.Energy justice plays a crucial role in acceptance of onshore wind energy projects, but residents prioritise different aspects depending on ownership.Policymakers and developers should take into account the preferences and concerns of local residents when designing renewable projects, especially in terms of fair involvement and fair distribution of benefits.Better support for communities and developers is essential if the Scottish Government want shared ownership offered on all new projects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".