Neil Simcock

Exploring how stakeholders in two community wind projects use a “those affected” principle to evaluate the fairness of each project's spatial boundary

This article explores how the geographic boundaries of who could participate in the decision processes of two community-owned wind energy projects (WEPs) was evaluated in terms of their fairness by project leaders and local residents. In particular, it analyses the varying ways that the justice principle of “those affected by a decision have a right to be involved in making that decision” was utilised to make claims about the fairness of each boundary. In both case studies, even though this justice principle was often shared by local stakeholders, defining exactly what a “fair” boundary encompassed was problematic and strong disagreements emerged. Three factors that contributed to this disagreement are highlighted, and the significance of the findings for the implementation of community WEPs is reflected upon.

Chapter 6 Making Power Differently: Exploring the Motives and Meanings of Community Renewable Energy Development in Cases from the UK and South Korea

Community renewable energy has been widely advocated as a mode of implementation of sustainable energy technologies that contrast in various ways from those of public or private sector utilities (Walker & Cass, 2007). Community energy projects have been established in many countries around the world, including various parts of Europe (DTI, 2004; Lauber, 2004; Madlener, 2007), the United States (Hoffman & High-Pippert, 2005, 2009), Australia (Moloney, Horne, & Fien, 2010) and Japan (Maruyama, Nishikido, & Iida, 2007), forming part of a more distributed rather than centralised pattern of energy generation. For Seyfang and Smith (2007) they potentially represent examples of ‘grassroots innovation’, forms of niche-based social experimentation with wider significance for the emergence of forms of transition towards sustainable socio-technical systems (Smith, 2007).