The evolution of equity in offshore renewable energy: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offshore renewable energy (ORE) projects are becoming a promising solution in transitioning to cleaner energy, but there are important questions regarding the governance and policy goals of such projects, particularly given frequent opposition from local communities who do not believe these projects lead to equitable benefits. This study explores the relationship between ORE and equity, analyzing how the concept of equity has been conceptualized over the last two decades. A systematic review of this scholarship shows that research from various disciplines has investigated and narrowed the broad concept of equity to a few core considerations, but these have not yet been specifically integrated to inform ORE. These equity considerations have so far evolved through three stages. First, the initial focus was on the cause-and-effect relationships between public perception, conflicts, and acceptance, showing that divergent stakeholder perceptions of ORE can lead to social conflicts, and consequently, low public acceptance. This highlights the importance of recognitional justice to ensure that all stakeholder perspectives are acknowledged and valued. The second stage sheds light on public engagement as a potential solution for converging different attitudes towards ORE. The third stage introduced the concept of energy justice into ORE equity studies, emphasizing the need for equal consideration of energy justice principles. Based on this, we recommend that research and development in ORE adopt a context-appropriate definition of equity and use transdisciplinary methods to facilitate collaboration and integration on unique local social, economic, and ecological conditions. In addition, future research should strive for flexible ORE processes that encompass all principles of energy justice and minimize negative trade-offs by prioritizing local goals. These strategies aim to ensure ORE projects are developed with a strong emphasis on equity and justice that can enable a transition to cleaner energy while respecting local goals and redressing past injustice.
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 | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".