David Philipp Rudolph

Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment

Abstract In light of the growing emphasis on community engagement in the literature on renewable energy planning, and given the acknowledgement of the complexity of community engagement as a concept, we conducted an empirical review of practice relating to community engagement with onshore wind farms in the UK, exploring what is actually happening in terms of community engagement relating to onshore wind farms, and examining the rationales underpinning approaches to community engagement. We found that a wide range of engagement methods are being used in relation to onshore wind farms across the UK, but that these are predominantly focused at consultation and awareness raising. Developers typically retain considerable – or total – control within such engagement processes. However, the case studies presented in this paper also evidence some innovation in engagement methods. Through this research we develop and test a non-hierarchical classification of community engagement approaches: awareness raising; consultation and empowerment. This provides a useful tool for reflecting on practices and rationales of community engagement. By considering the three approaches non-hierarchically, this model allows for an examination of how such rationales are acted on in practice.

Geography, Communities and Energy Futures: Alternative Research Paths

Climate change is widely accepted as one of the greatest challenges facing society in recent times. Overdependence on fossil fuels and the insatiable societal urge for economic growth has led to ev...

Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit:

This paper presents the findings of a research project evaluating community benefit models for offshore renewables. We identify and analyse UK and international case studies of different forms of community benefit, and provide evidence of how such benefits are delivered. In particular we consider the key relationship between the identification of communities, perception of impact, and the apportionment of benefits. In doing so, we develop a range of different definitions of ‘community’, ‘benefit’, and ‘impact’ when considering community benefits. We propose that the way in which community, benefit, and impact are understood is crucial in determining whether or how benefits should be apportioned and delivered; and that these definitions are closely connected to each other. We develop a new series of typologies as a way to understand this. Finally, we assess different mechanisms and schemes of community benefits to identify good practice and key points of learning for policy and planning.