This document discusses communities and their involvement in renewable energy projects in the UK. It outlines that little research has been done on the actual motives for local opposition to renewable energy schemes. More research is needed to help the UK meet climate change targets. The document reviews literature on social networks and communities. It discusses how communities can positively or negatively impact renewable energy projects through support, opposition, or indifference. When communities are involved and see benefits, renewable energy projects tend to be more successful.

1. 1
Alejo Etchart
May 2009
COMMUNITIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS IN THE UK
Executive summary
Little research has been done into the actual motives underlying the local opposition found in British local
communities against renewable energy schemes to be settled in their areas. Further research on the issue
would be helpful for the UK to meet their target share in the battle against climate change.
This work compiles, in a structured way, existing literature about the basic concepts of social networks and
communities to be taken on for that research. It outlines the importance of communities’ involvement in
developments, and gives a range of successful cases where communities and developers have provided
each other with a range of different benefits. Some lessons from the past are presented that can help
developers to assume proper methods and models for involving communities, as well as to prevent
mistakes from being repeated. The document ends with some possibilities for the Government to further
encourage community involvement.
1. Introduction
Lovins (1976, 1977) used the term ‘soft energy path’ to describe a desirable future where energy generated
by renewable sources steadily displaced centralized energy systems based on fossil and nuclear fuels.
Schumacher (1974) defended small scale energy developments. Dunn (1978) discussed the appropriate
technology for those developments. The issue of a focus on community scale energy generation is,
therefore, not new.
Nowadays, conventional energy developments are questioned (Devine-Wright 2005a), and alternative local
energy schemes, where local energy users are integrated in decision-making processes, are proposed as an
pre-requisite of the alternative path (Fielden 2000). Nevertheless, the British move towards a greater
generation of renewable energy (RE) by communities has not been easy for developers, policy makers or
communities themselves (Hinshelwood and McCallun 2001). Controversy is present in many of the local
RE schemes, and the majority of the planning applications are rejected or significantly delayed due to the
opposition of local communities (Devine-Wright 2005a).
Consequently, the RE energy business has become increasingly risky for developers in the UK, because the
financial need previous to effective development is high. Taking a planning decision through a public
inquiry is costly and time consuming (Hinshelwood 2001). Few examples of RE developments exist in the
UK with high levels of local involvement or leadership (Devine-Wright 2005a). Developments are more
frequently led by the private sector and driven by economic and environmental incentives rather than by
social concerns (Hinshelwood 2000; Devine-Wright et al. 2001), in contrast with other European countries
like Sweden and Denmark (Devin-Wright 2005a).
The opposition frequently found from communities to settle RE plants in their territory contrasts with the
strong public support to RE schemes (Vorkinn and Riese 2001). This contrast is called NIMBYism (‘not in
my backyard’): “an attitude ascribed to persons who object to the siting of something they regard as
detrimental or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, while by implication raising no objections to similar
developments elsewhere” (Wolsink 2006 :86). This attitude is often labelled as irrational or illogical, but
this is not necessarily so: there may be rational motives to explain it (DMU 2008a). A simplistic attribution
of NIMBYism may hinder the identification of the real underlying motives for it (Devine-Wright 2005b).
In fact, in a study carried out by Wolsink (2000), NIMBYism only explained 4% of the variance in
support, while attitude explained 28%. Other factors that may determine the attitude towards wind farms
are summarized in Figure 1.

2. 2
Figure 1- Wolsink’s (2000) model of support/opposition to wind farm developments. Source: DMU (2008b)
The literature has been more successful in describing perceptions of wind farms, than in than providing
substantive explanations for them (Devine-Wright 2005b). Little research has been undertaken to find out
the real motives for the opposition (Walker 2007), so that a theoretical gap exists that needs to be filled in
(Devine-Wright 2005b). Nevertheless, what is proved is that place attachment to the area affected by the
development is a significant predictor of the perceptions of new RE developments (Vorkinn and Riese
2001). The application of place theory to future studies of public perceptions of wind farms could offer
more sophisticated explanations of the social and psychological bases of wind farm perceptions (MORI
Scotland 2002).
This work document mainly refers onshore wind turbines cases because it is the most frequent RE
technology used in the UK (HL 2008). Stern (2009) says that wind energy is set to account for 8% of
electricity generation in the UK in 2010, even though it is failing far behind in this target, with only 3% by
the end of 2008. According to the House of Lords (HL 2008), offshore wind farms only accounted for
20.6% of total generation from wind by October 2008, but the Government has announced plans to
increase the installed offshore wind capacity by forty fold. The community approach to offshore
developments is also relevant when communities are affected by the offshore schemes. The underlying
principles of the community approach would still remain.
2. Social networks, social capital and renewable energies
“Social capital consists of the networks, norms, relationships, values and informal sanctions that shape the
quantity and co-operative quality of a society’s social interactions. Social capital can be measured using a
range of indicators, but the most commonly used measure is trust in other people” (PIU 2002). Higher
levels of social capital make communities, and individuals within them, more able to assume
responsibilities. But they can also hinder changes; for example, low educational aspirations or hostility
to government could inhibit key policy outcomes within a community (Halpern and Bates 2004;
Coleman 1986).
A social network is a web of social relationships, which may be characterised by reciprocity, similarity,
emotional closeness, geographical closeness and level of knowledge of each other (ibid.). Social networks
are micro examples of social capital (House 1981). Their influence on people’s behaviour –e.g., through
the views of friends and family- is generally higher than advice from governments or information
campaigns (ibid.). They are always one step ahead of external developers, in that they know the
communications channels, the facilities for placing a petition and the media contacts, and therefore can
draw on local support very easily (Hinshelwood and McCallum 2001).
According to Hinshelwood and McCallum (ibid.), social networks can be formally constituted or based on
informal relations when people talk about a locality among those who live there (at back gardens, at school
gates or in a pub). While formal groups mostly deal with issues that are pertinent to them, and take

3. 3
decisions through agreed procedures in arranged meetings with minuted agenda and discussions, informal
ones meet unofficially, are less structured and peer pressure is often applied to influence people’s opinion.
It is easier to deal with formal networks than with informal ones. Formal networks can be approached by
sending information, arranging presentations and requesting their consideration. It is important to consider
that each member of a formal group is also member of a range of informal networks, through which they
can draw on the others’ opinions in the moment of their formulation, by giving information without which
false rumours can potentially be disseminated. Leaflets and press are other ways of provide informal
networks about new developments, which is necessary to enhance people’s capacity to discuss about them.
On the negative side, well net-worked social campaigners have established local organisations that have
successfully influenced people against RE developments. For example, Country Guardian (n.d.) is itself a
social network deliberately set out to undermine the development of RE schemes that uses local social
networks as its mean of influence (ibid.). They have a huge track of success in blocking RE planning
applications, by undermining the organizations involved in the project, the consultation process, the RE
itself, the potential benefits or broader issues (climate change problem, limits of RE, value of energy
conservation over RE) (ibid.). Developers should effort in providing the community with information from
the earliest possible stage, in order to tackle the actions of these undermining campaigns, because, once
established, perceptions can be difficult to change, becoming a barrier to the delivery of renewable energy
projects (DMU 2008a).
3. Definition and types of community
The concept of community entails some combination of cooperation, participation, consensus within
locally bounded networks, self-determination, ownership and local benefit (Hunter 2006). Communities
are formed by people who have things in common (Hinshelwood and McCallum 2001). Hunter (2006) says
that the concept of community can be understood under different rationales, among which: market (e.g.
investors and entrepreneurs), legal (e.g. non-profit organizations), political (e.g. public opinion), physical
(e.g. location) and others.
Walker (2008) differentiates between communities of locality and communities of interest. The latter refers
to groups joined together by a common interest, not necessarily local to each other (DTI 2000).
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001) think that communities who live nearby RE schemes (communities of
location) must be addressed primarily, because they are the ones that will be most affected and whose
power can most either support RE schemes or be damaging to them. Nevertheless, communities of interest
may also play a significant role, as in the cases of groups of investors dispersed geographically, or
networks of protestors. In all cases, communities are manifestations of social networks, and may affect and
be affected by RE projects, as shown in section 4.
4. Importance of communities
4.1 Relevance of the scale
When communities are assumed as stakeholders, they pass from being seen as obstacles to being seen as
potential catalysts for change (Hinshelwoold and McCallum 2001). The skills, knowledge, motivation and
commitment that may exist within communities open a wide range of ways in which they can get involved
in RE schemes (ibid.).
Soft energy paths with communities’ involvement in local RE schemes offer greater hope for achieving the
sustainability goals than our current energy system (Schumacher 1974; Hines, 2001). In this sense,
communities can contribute to solve the environmental concerns. But Gardner and Stern (2002) say that
most of other environmental concerns are not solvable by community initiatives. Nevertheless, there are
examples where communities have contributed in further aspects than energy schemes (see section 7).

4. 4
4.2 Impacts of renewable energy projects in communities
4.2.1 Positive impacts
There are many ways in which a RE development can positively impact a community:
- Creating jobs (Walker 2008; THC 2004).
- Lowering energy prices (ibid.).
- Increasing the local security of energy supply, when the energy is to be consumed locally (ibid.).
- Diversifying of the local economy (ibid.).
- Regenerating under-utilised lands (THC 2004).
- Improving infrastructures (Hinshelwood and McCallum 2001).
- Offering funds (Walker 2008; Walker and Devine-Wright 2008; DMU 2008a; THC 2004)
- Offering ‘goodwill’ contributions when the development involves a long-term impact in the local
environment (THC 2004; Walker 2008).
- Offering incomes from the sale of the excess of electricity that may be agreed with the developer (FREE
2006; Walker 2008)
- Contributing towards Local Agenda 21 objectives (Hinshelwood and McCallum 2001)
- Building capacity in local people when they are trained to take part in the operation of the scheme (ibid.)
Walker (2007) gathers some case studies from England and Wales where these and other benefits have
been achieved with the community involvement:
- Supplying affordable heat for a village hall and for homes with poor existing heating systems: ground
source heat pump in Gamblesby and biomass district heating network in Llanwdynn (see EST 2009a).
- Supporting local forestry and regenerating the local economy: biomass district heating network in Kielder
(see TC n.d.).
- Providing a new income stream for local farmers: three grid connected 1.3MW wind turbines in Moel
Moelogan (see AA 2008).
- Sustaining facilities for a remote rural community: PV panels and biomass boilers in Falstone.
4.2.2 Negative impacts
Devine-Wright (2005b) gathers some potential negative impacts of wind turbines in communities:
- The main impact is the issue of visual perception. Thayer and Hansen (1988) say that this perception can
be based on physical or on symbolic attributes. Wolsink (2005) says that symbolic attributes (association
with other images, either positive or negative) may be determinant in the attitude towards a scheme.
- Noise made by rotating blades, including effects on people’s health.
- Threat to birds and other wildlife.
- Interference with TV reception.
People may also oppose because they feel they have a lack of control over the planning process. Three
possible reasons can be found for that perception (DMU 2008d):
- A strong feeling of place attachment (see section 4.2.2).
- Poor consultation, potentially due to:
• Inadequate communication skills of planning professionals
• Distrust between residents and decision makers (Macnaghten et al. 1995)
• Developers’ scepticism about the need to involve the community (Devine-Wright et al. 2001)
• Structure of UK planning process: ‘decide-announce-defend’ as opposed to ‘consult-consider-plan-
proceed’ (Bell et al. 2006). This structure may change with the approval of the new Planning Act,
now in progress (OHLC 2008). This act might, nevertheless, reduce the opportunities for people to
have a say into planning decisions that will impact upon their local areas (DMU 2008a).
- Poor communication, due to the lack of possibility for individuals to express their opinions, the action of
local media more interested in controversy than in a balanced debate, or the lack of real interest of
individuals in understanding the issue.
For Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001), people oppose to new developments for all sorts of reasons, but
basically because they imply a threat on some element of their lives, particularly when they have a feeling
of place attachment that can be threatened by RE developments (Altman and Low 1992).

5. 5
4.3 Impacts of communities in renewable energy projects
Communities may impact RE projects in different ways:
- Actively seeking projects to be deployed in their area (Hinshelwood n.d.)
- Helping to overcome obstacles, in the planning permission stage (Token 2005; Bell et al. 2005; Broome
2000)
- Contributing to developments with values within the community, when this is involved in planning or
management. This involvement has important benefits (Gardner and Stern 2002):
• Helps the development to be built on already existing social structures.
• Makes most costs and benefits occur locally, therefore internalising externalities.
• Favours a more effective management over long periods, by integrating social values into decision
processes and providing institutional legitimacy.
• Encourages unselfishness, by promoting democracy and procedural fairness.
• Has a low enforcement cost, because it raises public trust and confidence in decisions and decision
makers.
• Brings environmental and social benefits.
- On the negative side, hindering developments or preventing them from implementation (Walker 2007).
4.4 Value of community involvement: conclusions
Communities and RE projects have big potential for giving value to each other. Further, community
involvement stimulates the market for renewable technologies, which is needed in order to meet the
objective for 2020 of 20% electricity generated by RE (Walker 2007). It also promotes a more informed
public debate about future patterns of energy generation and use (DMU 2008a), the importance of which
has been outlined by British institutions (RCEP 2000; PIU 2002).
Nevertheless, as gathered by DMU (2008c), the public involvement in RE developments also presents
limitations and disadvantages:
- It is more feasible to occur when resources and pollution are contained in small area (Gardner and Stern
2002).
- Current social trends are destroying conditions for community management (ibid.).
- Shared values and norms may no longer exist within communities (Brindley n.d.).
- Absence of local institutions and rules for self-management may make common resource management
unrealistic (ibid.).
Driving a planning decision through a public inquiry is costly and time consuming (Hinshelwood and
McCallum 2001). However, the acceptance of the local community is needed to achieve a successful
implementation, in order to avoid a feeling of imposition with little benefits accrued back to the
community (Broome 2000), which could result in community’s opposition to the project. Daugaard (1997)
shows that public perception of wind farms in Denmark changed with community involvement.
Hinshelwood and McCallum (2001) suggest that if as much rigour was applied to the social aspects of RE
schemes as to the technical and environmental aspects, then the applications would be substantially easier
and ultimately less costly. They conclude that involving local people is cost effective.
5. Involving communities
The involvement of local communities in RE schemes to achieve the positives commented in sections 4.2.1
and 4.3 can be achieved through several models of ownership (Walker 2008): cooperatives, community
charities, development trust or shares owned by a local community organisation. The latter way has been
used to gift shares, or one or more turbines, to the general community, tying it closely to the performance
of the production scheme. Other types of involvement without ownership are also possible (see sections 5.1
and 5.2). The needs, characteristics and type of community (location or interest) condition the options
available (ibid.).

6. 6
Research suggests that three prerequisites are needed to gain public support to RE developments (DMU
2008a):
- Public awareness of energy issues and of the role of renewables in reducing emissions.
- Design of the scheme in relation to the site characteristics.
- Credible local participation process. Fairness in giving to all interested, concerned or affected parties a
participative role in decision-making process, as well as competence in the application of all the reasonably
knowable technologies, are some criteria for successful a participation.
The presence of all three factors cannot guarantee a successful development, but the evidence says that
they help a great deal (ibid.).
Levine (1986) thinks that the characteristics of communities most likely to be successful are:
- Being small (200 to 1000 people).
- Sharing values and norms.
- Aligning individual and collective interests.
- Mixing collective control with some degree of individual autonomy.
- Effective sanctions for rule breaking.
- Appropriate conflict resolution strategies.
These characteristics suggest that reinforcing the community’s internal cohesion should be effective in
promoting small-scale RE developments.
5.1 Involvement via information, consultation or participation
Davidson (1998) differentiated four levels of involvement, with several sub-levels each (Figure 2):
- Information: quality and quantity of data disseminated about the development.
- Consultation: dialogue between community and developer for the latter to consider relevant opinions for
developing the scheme.
- Participation: community influence in decision making processes.
- Empowerment: community control over the scheme.
Figure 2- The wheel of empowerment (Davidson 1998) Source: The University of Manchester (n.d)
5.2 Involvement on process vs. participation in outcomes
Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) superimposed over two axes, measuring participation and outcomes,
three groups of different ideas of what community RE means for members of a community, for a wind
farm project in Northern England (Figure 3). They found that some think that a community project
should particularly mean a high grade of local participation in the planning, setting up or
operation (viewpoint A). Others were less concerned with who participates in the project,
provided that it benefited the community, (viewpoint B). Finally, others were more flexible in
their conception and admitted any type of community involvement always meant the project went

7. 7
ahead and drove to something productive and useful (viewpoint C). The authors’ personal
assessment is mixed: they give weight to the Government guidance about the distribution of the
benefits to communities (CSE et al 2007), and also encourage the involvement of local people in
the process for getting greater acceptance and support.
Figure 3- The meaning of RE in relation to project process and
outcome dimensions. Source: Walker and Devine-Wright (2008)
6. Conclusion about community involvement
As it has been shown before, and officially stated (DTI 2003; ODPM 2004; DEFRA 2004), community
involvement that gives to it some degree of control will provide the community with a sense of satisfaction
that will not only benefit developers and communities, but also help to mitigate the climate change.
7. Lessons from the past
In the mid-1990s, a developer sought to install 17 turbines in the east of Scotland, 3km from the nearest
town. The project, according to developer, had neglible impacts on wildlife and few problems for noise or
visual intrusion. Little public consultation was done. The planning permission was refused (Devine-Wright
et al. 2001).
Walker (2008) thinks that things are changing in the UK, even though the progress made over ten years is
very low. He reflects that in the last years a range of community involvement models have demonstrated to
be successful in the UK. The key question for Walker is to what extent those cases can be replicated.
Evidence of a replication process is emerging (ibid.). Baywind Energy Co-operative (BECL 2007) is an
example of innovative co-ownership under a co-operative formula. After several successful wind farm
projects (EST n.d.), they set the company Energy4All (Energy4All 2007) to support other co-operative
wind farm projects. Successful model replications have been made in Bro Dyfi (Wales), Westmill
(Oxfordshire) and Boyndie (Aberdeenshire) (ibid.).
The case of Awel Awan Tawe (AAT) (Hinshelwood and McCallum 2001; Hinshelwood n.d.; Devine-
Wright 2005; AAT n.d.) has become a paradigmatic example in the UK for community projects
development. In the semi-rural area of the Upper Aman and Tawe valleys there was a locally identified
need of funding for regeneration, and high unemployment. The idea of a wind farm arose as a way to help
the valleys develop. The importance of informal networks and peer pressure was proved when the
introduction of the idea led to a strong local anti-campaign, which even caused those in favour of the
project to feel excluded as a result of their views. After the planning permission was refused in 2005, a

8. 8
community approach was undertaken. The needs of the community were identified. The residents’ control
of the farm influenced people’s view of it, and AAT could overcome their initial resistance. The planning
was approved one year later. The case can provide lessons for the future in:
- The importance of local involvement in processes in the development planning, so that it can be tailored
to meet local needs; and in the outcomes.
- That communities are not homogeneous in their priorities.
- That the level of local control, input and benefits will determine the level of support from communities,
and therefore also the extent to which the project can be beneficial to them.
The case of Swaffham (Norfolk) (Hinshelwood n.d.) also shows how RE developments can report high
benefits to the community. The first turbine was controversial when installed in 1999, but soon won over
the local community, who quickly recognized it as a source of civic pride rather than an eyesore. The boost
to jobs and to the local economy, and the creation of a successful environmental education centre, made the
town councilors vote unanimously in favor when it came to a second turbine. Things kept on growing
satisfactorily. Today, the scheme produces heat and power 1,258 homes (75% of population), and has one
of the highest wind turbines in the UK (85m).
On the economic side, Walker (ibid.) outlines the need of viability for small scale installations that
currently do no break even without subsidies, particularly where developments are based around
generating a return to community investors. The Energy Saving Trust (EST 2005) is optimistic on
technology improvements to reduce costs in the next years. On the other side, the economic viability of RE
projects depends largely on the prices of traditional fuels, which have proved to be very volatile in the last
years (Oil Marketer 2009).
As per the type of locations, according to Walker (2008), nearly all the activity in this field is being
developed in rural areas. Part of the key to wider diffusion of RE is the involvement of the urban
environment. Solar harnessing technologies, CHP plants and disctrict heating networks have large potential
for it. Castlemilk urban wind farm case in Glasgow is proposed by Walker (ibid.) as an innovative example
of an urban, community-managed RE development.
Cuba provides an example of what small urban communities can do not only in community RE schemes,
but also in other issues of sustainability like neighbourhood’s urban agriculture and permaculture in
general (The Power of Community 2006; Bermejo 2008). At semi-municipal levels, community actions
that affect other issues of sustainability (responsible consumption, public transport or land distribution)
have been implemented; not only within Cuba, but also within Denmark, Sweden, towns involved in
Transition Towns and Post Carbon Cities movements, and a wide range of American and European
regions, different community approaches to tackle climate change have been successfully implemented
(Bermejo 2008).
8. Government policy
Since 2000, the UK Government has sought to develop community renewable energy through support
schemes and funding programmes (Walker et al. 2007), outlining the virtues of community-based
distributed energy, contribution to economic regeneration, social cohesion and public understanding and
support for renewable energy (DTI 2000, 2006). Nevertheless, Government programs have not prioritized
community ownership as a key feature (Walker et al. 2007; Walker and Devine-Wright 2008).
The Community Renewables Initiative (CRI) played an important supporting, handholding and networking
role in England, and the decision not to renew its funding it in 2007 left an important gap that the
Community Action for Energy (CAfE) (EST 2008) has not filled in (Walker 2008, Walker and Devine-
Wright 2008). The CAfE provides networking and information, but lacks not only funds, but also regional
support (ibid.). By contrast, the funding support given by the Scottish Community and Household
Renewables Initiative (SCHRI) (EST 2009) has been expanded. “Scotland provides an example that the
rest of the UK could do well to follow” (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008 :500).

9. 9
Finally, the quota system followed in the UK to remunerate the RE sold to the national grid is said by
many to be less effective than the feed-in-tariff (FIT) model followed by most European countries (EPIA
2007) in providing the generators with security and promoting technological improvement (HC 2007). By
reducing the uncertainty in the incomes, this shift would positively affect communities’ involvement.
9. Conclusions
The British path to a substitution of conventional energy sources by RE often faces the opposition of local
communities that, even though in favour of RE, do not want them to be settled in their areas.
Understanding the running principles of social networks and communities is needed to strenghten
communities involvement in RE developments, and to mitigate that opposition. When both developers and
communities have a range of benefits from community involvement, the process to increase the share of
renewables gets reinforced. This increase is needed for the UK to meet their objectives.
Some successful and varied benchmarks of community involvement exist in the UK that offer lessons for
new developments. Policies could do more to favour higher degrees of community participation, therefore
increasing the UK’s contribution to tackle the climate change.
Word count:
Main text net of citations: 4,049. Citations: 368. References: 1,489
REFERENCES - References and citations are given following the Harvard system of referencing (DMU 2008)
AA- ASHDEN AWARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (2008) Cwmni Gwynt Teg cooperative, UK.
Ail Wynt project, Moel Moelogan Wind Farm. [WWW] Avaliable from:
http://www.ashdenawards.org/winners/cgt [Accessed 28/04/09]
AAT- Awel Aman Tawe (n.d.) Awel Amman Tawe community energy. [WWW] Available from:
http://www.awelamantawe.org.uk/ [Accessed 30/04/09]
ALTMAN, I. and LOW, S. (1992) Place Attachment. New York: Plenum.
ARNSTEIN, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planning,
35(4), 216-224.
AUBREY, C. (2003) Who'd like a turbine? [WWW] Greenfutures. Available from:
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/601656 [Accessed 30/04/09]
BECL- BAYWIND ENERGY CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED (2007) About us [WWW] Available from:
http://www.baywind.co.uk/baywind_aboutus.asp [Accessed 01/05/09]
BELL, D., GRAY, T. and HAGGET C. (2005). The social gap in wind farm siting decisions: explanation
and policy responses. Environmental Politics 14(4) pp.460-477.
BERMEJO, R. (2008) Un futuro sin petróleo. Colapsos y transformaciones socioeconómicas.
Madrid: Los libros de la Catarata.
BRINDLEY, T. (undated). Village and Community: Social Models for Sustainable Urban Development?
Unpublished manuscript.
BROOME, L. (2000) Local renewables: project review. In: Natta local renewables conference report. UK:
Opend University.
CSE- CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, GARRAD HASSAN AND PARTNERS LTD.,
PETER CAPENER and BOND PEARCE LLP (2007). Delivering community benefits from wind energy
development: a toolkit. Report for the Renewables Advisory Board and DTI. London: DTI
COLEMAN, J. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94, supplement S95-S120.
COUNTRY GUARDIAN (n.d.) Country Guardian’s website [WWW] Available from:
http://www.countryguardian.net/ [Accessed 03/05/97]
DAUGAARD, N. (1997) Acceptability Study for the use of Wind Power in Denmark. Copenhagen: Energy
Centre Denmark.
DAVIDSON, S. (1998) Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning, 4, 14-15.

10. 10
DEFRA- DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (2004) Government
Response to the recommendations made in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Special
Report on Biomass as a Renewable Energy Source [WWW] Available from:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/crops/industrial/energy/pdf/rcep-response.pdf [Accessed 02/05/09]
DEVINE-WRIGHT, P., MCALPINE, G. AND BATLEY-WHITE, S. (2001). Wind Turbines in the
Landscape: an evaluation of local community involvement and other considerations in UK wind farm
development. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research
Association. Edinburgh: EDRA, pp. 133-137
DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2005) Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public
beliefs and policy implications. Local Economy 10(1), pp.57-59.
DEVINE-WRIGHT (2005b) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding
public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8 (2), pp.125-139
DMU- DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE OF ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT (2008a) MSc Climate Change & Sustainable Development, PSCC module, Lesson
3.4- Renewable energy development: communities and conflicts. Leicester: DMU.
DMU (2008b) MSc Climate Change & Sustainable Development, PSCC module, Lesson 3.3- Social-
psychological aspects of renewable energy. Leicester: DMU.
DMU (2008c) MSc Climate Change & Sustainable Development, PSCC module, Lesson 2.2- The
psychology of common (and open access) resource use. Leicester: DMU.
DMU (2008d) MSc Climate Change & Sustainable Development, PSCC module, Slides lesson 2.1- Social
justice, equity and the politics of environmental problems. Leicester: DMU.
DTI- DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (2000) Community Involvement in Renewable
Energy Project: A Guide for Community Groups. London: DTI.
DTI- DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (2003) The energy white paper. London: DTI.
DTI- DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (2006). Our Energy Challenge: Power from the
People. Microgeneration Strategy. London: DTI.
DUNS P.D. (1978) Appropriate technology: technology with a human face. London: Macmillan.
ENERGY4ALL (2007) Energy4All Delivering Community-Owned Green Power. [WWW] Available
from: http://www.energy4all.co.uk/energy_home.asp [Accessed 01/05/09]
EPIA- EUROPEAN PHOTOVOLTAIC INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (2007), Access to the grid: A
precondition for the solar photovoltaic market to take-off. Press release [WWW] Available from:
http://www.epia.org/fileadmin/EPIA_docs/documents/RoundTable/RT03_070913_Press_Release.pdf
[Accessed 20/10/08]
EST- ENERGY SAVING TRUST (2005) Potential for Microgeneration. Study and Analysis [WWW]
BERR. Available from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file27559.pdf [Accessed 30/04/09]
EST- ENERGY SAVING TRUST (2008) Power in numbers. The benefits and potential of distributed
energy generation at the small community scale [WWW] EST. Available from:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/corporate/Global-Data/Publications/Power-in-numbers-full-report
[Accessed 30/04/09]
EST- ENERGY SAVING TRUST (2009a) Gamblesby village hall's ground source heat pump. Project
overview. [WWW] Available from: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/cafe/Community-Action-for-
Energy/Community-Projects/Add-your-project/Gamblesby-village-hall-s-ground-source-heat-pump
[Accessed 28/09/04]
EST- ENERGY SAVING TRUST (2009b) Scottish Community and Householder Renewables Initiative
(SCHRI) [WWW] Available from: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/Scotland/Scottish-
Community-and-Householder-Renewables-Initiative-SCHRI [Accessed 30/04/09]
EST- ENERGY SAVING TRUST (n.d.) Case Study 20: Baywind Renewable Energy Co-operative.
[WWW] Available from:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/aboutest/Case_Study_20_low_res.pdf
[Accessed 02/05/09]
FIELDEN (2000) Decentralized power and biomass. Cogeneration and On-site Power Production. May-
June, pp.43-46.
GARDNER, G. and STERN, P. (2002). Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. New York: Allyn
and Bacon.
HALPERN, D. and BATES, C. (2004) Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: the state of
knowledge and its implications for public policy. London: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. Available
from: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/pr2.pdf [Accessed 27/04/09]

11. 11
HC- HOUSE OF COMMONS, TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (2007) Local energy- turning
consumers into producers. First Report of Session 2006–07. London: The Stationery Office. Available
from: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmtrdind/257/257.pdf
[Accessed 30/04/09]
HINES, C. (2001) Localisation: A Global Manifesto. London: Earthscan.
HINSHELWOOD, E. (2000) Whistling in the wind: the role of communities in renewable energy
development. Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment. Newsletter 127,
September– October, pp. 17–20.
HINSHELWOOD, E. (2001) Community energy: experiences from a South Wales wind farm project
(Awel Aman Towel). Unpublished.
HINSHELWOOD E. & McCALLUM D. (2001) Consulting communities: a renewable energy toolkit.
London: Department for Trade and Industry.
HOUSE, J.S. (1981) Work, stress and social support. Reading (USA): Addison Wesley.
HL- HOUSE OF LORDS, SELECT COMITEE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (2008) 4th report session
2007-2008- The Economics of Renewable Energy. London: The Stationary Office.
HUNTER, S. (2006) Harnessing Community Energies. Presentation given at the IESD, De Montfort
University. Leicester: DMU. January 2006.
LEVINE, B. (1986). The Tragedy of the Commons and the Comedy of Community: The Commons in
History. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 81-99.
LOVINS, A.B. (1976) Energy strategy: the road not taken? Foreign Affairs, 55(1), pp.65-83.
LOVINS, A.B. (1977) Soft energy paths: toward a durable peace. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
MACNAGHTEN, P., GROVE-WHITE, R., JACOBS, M. and WYNNE, B. (1995). Public Perceptions of
Sustainability in Lancashire: indicators, institutions and participation. Lancaster: Centre for the Study
of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster.
MORI SCOTLAND (2002). Tourist attitudes towards wind farms: research study conducted for Scottish
Renewables Forum and British Wind Energy Association. Edinburgh: MORI.
ODPM- Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Planning policy statement 22: renewable energy.
http://www.bcse.org.uk/docs/UKBCSE%20Response%20to%20O1A9A73.pdf [Accessed 29/04/09]
ODPM- OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (2005). Sustainable Communities: People,
Places and Prosperity. London: The Stationary Office.
OHLC- OFFICE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (2008) Government reform bills- In progress.
Planning Act. [WWW] Available from: http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/page2166.asp
[Accessed 01/05/09]
OIL MARKETER (2009) Daily Oil Prices & Futures News on the Blackstuff [WWW] Available
from: http://www.oilmarketer.co.uk/ [Accessed 30/04/2004]
PIU- PERFORMANCE AND INNOVATION UNIT (2002) Social Capital: A Discussion Paper. London:
PIU. Available from:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/socialcapital.pdf [Accessed
25/04/09]
RCEP- ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (2000). Energy: the Changing
Climate.
[WWW] Available from: http://www.rcep.org.uk/newenergy.htm
RYDIN, Y. (2000). The Public and Local Environmental Policy: Strategies for Promoting Public
Participation. London: Town and Country Planning Association.
SCHUMACHER, E .F. (1974) Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered. London:
Abacus.
STERN, N. (2009) Blueprint for a Safer Planet: how to manage climate change and create a new era of
progress and prosperity. London: The Bodley Head.
TC- TYNEDALE COUNCIL (n.d.) Kieder Distric Heating [WWW]. Available from:
http://www.neforestry.info/kielderheating/index.php [Accessed 28/04/09]
THAYER, R.L. AND H. HANSEN, 1988. Wind on the land; Renewable energy and pastoral scenery vie
for dominance in the siting of wind energy developments. Landscape Architecture 78 (2) pp.69-73
THE POWER OF COMMUNITY (2006) Film. Directed by Faith Morgan. USA: The Community
Solution.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER (n.d) Who are the ‘public’ and what are they ‘participating’ in?
Presentation by Kingston, R. and Smith, R.S. [WWW] Available from:
http://www.ppgis.manchester.ac.uk/downloads/WUN_GISc_PPGIS_Seminar.pdf [Accessed 29/04/09]

12. 12
THC- The Highland Council (2004) Community Toolkit. Could your community benefit from renewable
energy development?[WWW] Available from: http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3A74A6F6-
4DFE-41E3-9166-1BDF4CA94EC7/0/cbmain.pdf [Accessed 29/04/09]
TOKE, D. 2005. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and
Wales. Energy Policy 33: 1527–1539.
VORKINN, M. and RIESE, H. (2001) Environmental concern in a local level: the significance of place
attachment. Environment and Behaviour, 33, pp.249-263.
WALKER G. (2007). Community Energy Initiatives: Embedding Sustainable Technology at a Local Level:
Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-338-25-0010-A. Swindon: ESRC
WALKER, G., HUNTER, S., DEVINE-WRIGHT, P., EVANS, B. and FAY, H., (2007). Harnessing
community energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in
the UK. Global Environmental Politics 7 (2), 64–82
WALKER, G. (2008) What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy
production and use? Energy Policy 36, pp.4401-4405.
WALKER, G. AND DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2008) Community renewable energy: What should it mean?
Energy Policy 36 pp.497-500.
WOLSINK M. (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited
significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21, pp.49–64.
WOLSINK, M. (2005) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and
fairness instead of `backyard motives'. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 11 pp.1188–207
WOLSINK, M. (2006) Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the
language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(1), 85-91.