MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400131905 · doi:10.1080/13549839.2024.2360716

Why does community ownership foster greater acceptance of renewable projects? Investigating energy justice explanations

2024· article· en· W4400131905 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLocal Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of St Andrews
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Economic JusticeRenewable energySocial acceptanceStructural equation modelingBusinessPublic economicsWind powerSurvey data collectionEmpirical researchMarketingEnvironmental economicsEconomicsSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it