Moving Towards Sustainable Community

Renewable Energy: A Strategic

Approach for Communities
Leigh Greenius, Elsa Jagniecki, Kati Thompson
School of Engineering
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Karlskrona, Sweden
2010

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards

Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Abstract:

The developed world relies on an enormous supply of electricity and heat

energy to power countless daily activities, predominantly using non-
renewable fossil fuels. Although this energy assists people in meeting their
basic human needs, the way in which it is produced is at odds with the
ability of people to continue to meet their needs in the future. The current
trend towards renewable energy generation in the developed world that
involves community members is a positive step away from current
unsustainable energy practices. A Strategic Sustainable Development
(SSD) approach helps to guide planning and decision making by using a
vision of a sustainable energy future to assist in undertaking strategic
actions. To offer practical support to communities wanting to work towards
sustainable energy generation, this research combines the experience of
communities undertaking Community Renewable Energy projects with an
SSD approach, producing a Sustainable Community Renewable Energy
Tool.

Keywords: Community Renewable Energy, Community Involvement,

Community Benefits, Renewable Energy, Sustainability, Strategic
Sustainable Development

ii
Statement of Contribution

This thesis was written as a collaborative effort between three team

members: Leigh Greenius, Elsa Jagniecki, and Kati Thompson. Our
decision to focus on renewable energy solutions on the local level was
informed by a trip to Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change
Conference in December 2009, where renewable energy was a major focus.
We also each have a passion for community-based sustainability solutions
and for contributing to local innovation that has holistic benefits for
community members.

Since none of us had previous experience in working specifically with

Community Renewable Energy, it was a learning process for all of us as we
explored this inspiring area. We leave this thesis with a new-found passion
for renewable energy and a wish to continue contributing to the field.

Our research was strengthened by the fact that we traveled together to visit
case study communities in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, where we
interviewed together and enriched our understanding through the generous
contributions of 17 individuals in eight communities. We conducted nine
interviews together, and Kati carried on to conduct further interviews in
two other communities in Germany. These interviews gave us first-hand
insights into the experiences of communities working to generate renewable
energy, and allowed us to see the technology in action.

When researching organizations and sending out questionnaires, we each

used our networks and contacts in our home countries - Elsa in the US, Kati
in Australia and New Zealand, and Leigh in Canada. Elsa and Leigh also
researched and sent questionnaires to further communities in Europe. After
creating the SCRE Tool together, Elsa used her visual skills to graphically
design the tool, as well as creating the figures in the thesis.

Leigh Greenius - [email protected]

Elsa Jagniecki - [email protected]

Kati Thompson - [email protected]

iii
Acknowledgements

This research is a small reflection of the inspiring experience of

communities implementing Community Renewable Energy projects in
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Canada, the United States, and
Australia, which are part of a wider pool of many Community Renewable
Energy case studies across the world. To those working hard on the ground
to make more sustainable energy a reality in your community, we
acknowledge your efforts, and hope that our work will contribute in some
way to developing energy solutions.

We thank the following communities for their very generous contribution to

our thesis, sharing their experiences with us so that other communities
could gain from their successes and methods of overcoming challenges:

Sarah Nilsson, Växjö Kommun, Växjö, Sweden

Per Lundbäck, Municipality of Övertorneå, Övertorneå, Sweden
Bertel Bolt-Jørgensen, Climate Thy & Mors, Hurup, Denmark
Jane Kruse, Nordic Folkecentre for Renewable Energy, Hurup, Denmark
Preben Maegaard, Nordic Folkecentre for Renewable Energy, Hurup,
Denmark
Mikael Kau, Energibyen Frederikshavn, Frederikshavn, Denmark
Rune Schmidt, Energy and Environment Office, Ærø, Denmark
Jess Heinemann, Secretary of VEO (Renewable Energy Organization),
Ærø, Denmark
Lise Degn, Thisted Municipality, Thisted, Denmark
Leo Christensen, Lolland Municipality, Sealand, Denmark
Simon Kutzner, Stadwerke Energy Company, Prenzlau, Germany
Herr Stutzke, Stadwerke Energy Company, Prenzlau, Germany
Klaus, Stadwerke Energy Company, Prenzlau, Germany
Anonymous, Prenzlau Municipality, Prenzlau, Germany
Birgit Höhne, Stadtwerke Neustrelitz, Neustrelitz, Germany
Herr Haase, Stadtwerke Neustrelitz, Neustrelitz, Germany
Helmut Fries, Burgermeister, Turnow-Preilack Municipality, Turnow-
Preilack, Germany
Wolfgang Roick, State Forestry Department, Turnow-Preilack, Germany
Wilfried Rühling, Bioenergiedorf Energy Cooperative, Reiffenhausen,
Germany

iv
Klaus Christoph, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Bioenergiedorf
Energy Cooperative, Reiffenhausen, Germany
Anonymous, Burgenland, Austria
Byron LeClair, Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation, Ontario, Canada
Greg LeBlanc, Knowlesville Community Energy Cooperative, New
Brunswick, Canada
Neville Grigg, Highlands Social Enterprise Corporation, British Columbia,
Canada
Judith Lipp, Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative, Ontario, Canada
Anonymous, BC, Canada
Andrew Moore, T'Sou-ke First Nation, British Columbia, Canada
Lauren Martindale, Carbondale Clean Energy Collective, Colorado, USA
Anonymous, City of Lansing, Michigan, USA
Paul Bradstreet, Margaret River School, Western Australia, Australia
David Wait, Hepburn Community Wind Park, Victoria, Australia.

Particular thanks to Philipp Heise and Olaf Postel for their time in skilfully
translating interviews and helping arrange our interviews in Germany.
Vielen herzlichen Dank! Thanks to Owen Tallmadge for support in our
field research in Denmark and Germany, and to Ian Patrick for providing
feedback.

We have been greatly supported by our primary advisor Tamara Connell,

and her very valuable review of our draft work. This research has also been
inspired by the work of our secondary adviser Brendan Moore in
developing a Guide for Sustainable Energy Decisions, focusing on the
environmental impacts of renewable energy technologies. More generally,
this thesis is built on the work of the creators of the Framework for
Strategic Sustainable Development and the practitioners working with a
Strategic Sustainable Development approach over the past 30 years.

We would like to thank our peer and shadow groups for their very
professional input and feedback, as well as their contribution to keeping us
laughing and sane. A special thanks to Lea Thuot for helping in the design
of our questionnaire and interview questions.

v
Executive Summary

This thesis examines energy solutions found at the local level – what we
describe as ‘Community Renewable Energy’, or CRE. We studied 21
communities in the developed world (concentrating on North America,
Europe and Australia) who are generating electricity and heat energy in
their communities using renewable resources. While acknowledging the
positive contributions that CRE makes to reduce the negative impacts of
energy generation, we highlight the importance of incorporating a Strategic
Sustainable Development (SSD) approach to help CRE projects avoid
creating unintended negative impacts, which is incorporated in a
Sustainable Community Renewable Energy (SCRE) Tool for communities.

Introduction

The modern world relies on an enormous supply of electricity and heat

energy to power countless daily activities. Although the majority of
electricity and heat energy assists people in meeting their basic human
needs, among them the need for subsistence as defined by Max-Neef and
others (1989), the way in which it is generated and distributed is at odds
with the ability of people to continue to meet their needs into the future.

The main resources used to generate electricity and heat energy worldwide
are non-renewable fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, as well as non-
renewable nuclear materials. In OECD countries, electricity generation
consists of 62% generation from fossil fuels and 21% generation from
nuclear materials (IEA 2010). Heat energy is generated using 55% fossil
fuels (IEA 2010). As a consequence, most communities in the developed
world receive most of their electrical and heat energy from non-renewable
sources.

The pressing need for society to move towards sustainable energy solutions
is highlighted by the fact that:

• Most electricity and heat is generated from non-renewable sources,

many of which are anticipated to reach a peak of production in the
next 10-90 years;
• Energy generation accounts for 26% of global anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions - the single largest source of emissions

vi
 from human activity and a major contribution to human-induced
climate change;
• Energy systems are centralized and designed around non-renewable
resource use, disconnecting people from their energy generation;
• Energy demand is rising globally; and
• A quarter of the world’s population - 1.6 billion people - currently
have no access to electricity, which impacts the fulfilment of their
basic human needs, and is likely to swell future energy demand.

We believe renewable energy generated on a local scale is one of the key

solutions to the current global challenges but that it is also vital for
renewable energy projects to be developed by or with close involvement of
local people, and to ensure a local community experiences benefits.

CRE is made up of three main features: renewable energy generation within

the community, community involvement, and benefits to the community
from renewable energy generation. ‘Energy’ focuses on electricity
generation, heat generation, and heat energy generated as a by-product of
electricity generation (‘combined heat and power’).

Methods

This thesis was guided by three primary research questions:

1. What benefits and community involvement methods are present in

studied CRE projects?
2. What are the keys to success and challenges for communities
implementing CRE projects?
3. How can a Strategic Sustainable Development approach be applied
and used to support communities in moving CRE projects towards
sustainability?

To answer these questions, we conducted 11 in-person interviews in eight

communities in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and administered surveys
to 14 communities from Canada, US, Australia and Europe. After analyzing
CRE data, we applied a Strategic Sustainable Development approach to
CRE and produced a Sustainable Community Renewable Energy Tool for
communities to support them in establishing CRE projects and moving
towards sustainable energy generation.

vii
Results and Discussion

Research question 1: Features of CRE

Community involvement. Interviewed communities had a high rate of

initiation, ownership and management by municipalities, residents, or
community-owned energy companies, whereas surveyed communities had
a wider diversity of ownership types, including a greater number of
community initiated and owned CRE projects. Across interviews and
questionnaires, the types of engagement techniques used were fairly
similar, with community meetings and education events the most common
engagement methods.

Community benefits. In all cases each community experienced at least one

type of benefit, with interviewed communities on average reporting six
different benefit types arising from CRE, and surveyed communities five.
Social and economic benefits from CRE were most common across both
methods, with social benefits reported by 51% of researched communities
and economic benefits by 43%. The most common benefit was ‘Increased
local employment’, experienced by 82% of communities.

Research question 2: Keys to success and challenges in implementing

CRE

Keys to success for CRE. Across 21 case studies the most commonly stated
keys to success for CRE were: ‘High level of community support for a
project’, ‘Benefits and a high level of understanding of the benefits in the
community’, ‘High level of community involvement and participation’,
‘Access to technical expertise’, ‘High level of co-operation and
partnerships between community, government and industry’, and ‘Good
knowledge in the community of planning and approval processes’.

Challenges experienced in CRE. The main challenges researched

communities faced in implementing CRE were economic, technical and
political. Economic challenges were experienced in 95% of studied
communities, such as ‘High upfront costs’ and ‘Dependency on external
investors’. Technical challenges such as ‘Lack of infrastructure’ and
‘Limitation in distribution of energy’ were experienced by 91% of studied
communities, and political challenges were present in 86%, such as
‘Unfavourable national policies and regulations’. Social challenges were
experienced in 73% of studied communities.

viii
Research question 3: Application of a Strategic Sustainable
Development approach to CRE

This research suggests that CRE offers important benefits, and that by
generating renewable energy and involving local people, CRE is already
helping communities achieve positive steps away from the current
unsustainable energy system. However, through our research we also found
communities who were experiencing challenges and negative impacts
through implementing CRE.

By applying and using a Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD)

approach, this research helps communities interested in developing CRE, or
already underway with CRE, ensure that they are moving towards a
sustainable energy generating future – what we term Sustainable
Community Renewable Energy, or SCRE.

A Tool for Sustainable Community Renewable Energy

To support communities in working towards SCRE, this thesis presents an

SCRE Tool. The tool was developed out of our Research Question One and
Two findings, and from the application of a Strategic Sustainable
Development approach. The tool incorporates evidence on the need for
community involvement and benefits, and the most common keys to
success and methods of overcoming challenges gathered from researched
communities undertaking CRE projects.

The SCRE Tool is made up of three Guidelines, seven Stages which include
checklists for action, and ideas for how to implement each guideline for a
user. By progressing through the Stages of the tool, whether a community is
creating a CRE project for the first time or has an existing project,
communities are guided through visioning, assessing, brainstorming,
selecting and implementing, promoting, reviewing and reinvesting. This
leaves room for each individual community to determine its own
appropriate actions to work towards SCRE. To strengthen the tool we used
the challenges and negative impacts faced by researched communities to
test whether the tool would help other communities avoid these.

Recommendations for future research

This research has explored new territory in both CRE and the application of
a Strategic Sustainable Development approach to CRE. However, given the

ix
importance of sustainable energy generation within the global sustainability
challenge, and the limitations of this research, there is further research that
we believe needs to occur. To be most effective, the SCRE Tool could be
further developed and supported by additional research, including user
testing and the inclusion of a more diverse sample of CRE projects. The
tool could also gain from a more detailed rationale for an SCRE approach,
which includes tested benefits and the inclusion of further tools to quantify
impacts of CRE projects. Further research could also test how SCRE
guidelines can be embedded in local energy planning and policy at the
Municipal level, and analyse SCRE specific to developing countries,
potentially providing information to isolated rural communities in the
developed world. We would also like to explore the potential for inclusion
of further CRE research in the Real Change Programme.

Conclusion

Sustainable energy is critical in the face of the sustainability challenge and

the current dominance of centralized non-renewable energy generation. To
transition to a sustainable energy future, comprehensive as well as
accessible planning tools are necessary to support project initiators and
managers. The SCRE Tool fills this gap, creating a simple but
comprehensive aid for communities to move towards the potential of
sustainable energy generation on a local scale.

If the SCRE Tool is able to support and inspire communities to create CRE
projects and take steps closer towards SCRE for their local community,
then it will be considered a success. Hopefully, this is one of many
contributions to support communities in powering themselves towards a
more sustainable energy future, reaping all the benefits along the way.

x
Glossary

Anthropogenic climate change: A change in the state of the climate that

persists for an extended period of time and is due to human activities that
change the composition of the atmosphere (IPCC 2007b).

Backcasting: Planning from success by starting with the desired outcome in

mind and then determining the steps required to achieve the outcome.

Combined heat and power (CHP): A system that involves the recovery of
waste heat from electricity generation to form useful energy like useable
steam.

Community: A social group of any size with geographical proximity

amongst its members, such as a neighborhood, town, district or city where
people can interact face to face.

Community Renewable Energy (CRE): A type of energy generation

comprising three main features that have appeared in the literature:
renewable energy generation within the community, community
involvement, and benefits to the community from renewable energy
generation.

District heating: The distribution of thermal energy in the form of steam or

hot water from a central source of production through a network to multiple
buildings or sites, for the use of space or process heating or cooling.

Energy: The amount of heat or work delivered (IPCC 2007b). Electricity

and heat energy are the focus in this thesis.

Fossil fuels: Fuels that “are taken from natural resources which were
formed from biomass in the geological past. By extension, the term fossil is
also applied to any secondary fuel manufactured from a fossil fuel” (IEA
2005).

Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD): The FSSD is a

five-level model for analysing, planning and decision-making towards
global socio-ecological sustainability, utilizing a whole-systems approach
and science-based Sustainability Principles.

xi
Funnel metaphor: The funnel is a metaphor used to describe the
sustainability challenge, made up of current global trends such as
decreasing resource availability, increasing social inequality, rapidly
expanding population, a growing demand for resources, decreasing social
trust, and increasing pollution and waste production.

Greenhouse gases: Gases that, in the atmosphere, reduce the loss of heat
into space. Emissions of greenhouse gases are the main driver of human-
induced climate change.

Human needs: This thesis uses the definition developed by Max-Neef and
others (1989) which identifies nine fundamental human needs: subsistence,
idleness, protection, affection, creation, identity, understanding,
participation, and freedom. These needs are universal throughout time and
culture and may be satisfied in different ways according to context.

Renewable energy: Energy resources which, “apart from geothermal

energy, are drawn directly or indirectly from current or recent flows of the
constantly available solar and gravitational energy” (IEA 2005).

Sustainability (socio-ecological sustainability): The capacity for society to

develop in a manner that does not detract from vital ecological support
systems nor undermine the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. (See Sustainable Development)

Sustainable Community Renewable Energy (SCRE): SCRE is Community

Renewable Energy (renewable energy generation within the community,
community involvement, and benefits to the community from renewable
energy generation), achieved in a way that complies with the four
Sustainability Principles (see ‘Sustainability Principles’).

Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD): The SSD approach guides

planning and decision making by ensuring a vision of a sustainable future is
established in order to then determine strategic actions to work towards the
vision.

Sustainable development: Human development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs, as defined by the Brundtland Commission.

xii
Sustainability Principles (SPs): Four scientifically-based principles
that should be adhered to to support human society on Earth within the
ecosphere. These are as follows: In a sustainable society, nature is not
subject to systematically increasing: 1) Concentrations of substances
extracted from the earth's crust, 2) Concentrations of substances produced
by society; 3) Degradation by physical means; and, in society, 4) People are
not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to
meet their needs (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000; Ny and others 2006).

xiii
Table of Contents

Statement of Contribution ........................................................................ iii


Acknowledgements .................................................................................... iv


Executive Summary................................................................................... vi


Glossary ...................................................................................................... xi


Table of Contents ..................................................................................... xiv


List of Figures and Tables...................................................................... xvii


1
 Introduction........................................................................................... 1


1.1
 Sustainability and the energy challenge ....................................... 1


1.1.1
 Energy sources in the developed world............................ 3


1.1.2
 Energy systems in the developed world........................... 6


1.1.3
 Introduction to Strategic Sustainable Development......... 6


1.2
 Community Renewable Energy .................................................. 11


1.2.1
 Definition of Community Renewable Energy................ 11


1.2.2
 Community Renewable Energy generation.................... 13


1.2.3
 Community involvement................................................ 14


1.2.4
 Community benefits ....................................................... 16


1.3
 Research focus: Sustainable Community Renewable Energy .... 18


1.3.1
 Research scope ............................................................... 19


1.3.2
 Research questions ......................................................... 20


2
 Methods................................................................................................ 21


xiv
 2.1
 Research stages ........................................................................... 21


2.1.1
 Stage One: Develop initial research ............................... 21


2.1.2
 Stage Two: Conduct active field research ...................... 23


2.1.3
 Stage Three: Analyze CRE data ..................................... 24


2.1.4
 Stage Four: Apply a Strategic Sustainable Development

approach...................................................................................... 25


3
 Results .................................................................................................. 26


3.1
 Key features of CRE ................................................................... 26


3.1.1
 Community involvement ................................................ 27


3.1.2
 Community benefits ....................................................... 32


3.2
 Keys to success and challenges................................................... 35


3.2.1
 Keys to success ............................................................... 35


3.2.2
 Challenges experienced in CRE ..................................... 40


3.2.3
 Methods of overcoming challenges ................................ 44


3.3
 Application of an SSD approach................................................. 46


3.3.1
 Integration of the SSD approach for CRE in guidance for

CRE projects............................................................................... 48


4
 Discussion............................................................................................. 53


4.1
 Key findings ................................................................................ 53


4.1.1
 Research question 1: Features of CRE ........................... 53


4.1.2
 Research question 2: Keys to success and challenges .... 54


4.1.3
 Research question 3: Application of a Strategic

Sustainable Development approach............................................ 54


xv
 4.2
 Strengths and limitations ............................................................ 57


4.2.1
 Research strengths.......................................................... 57


4.2.2
 Research limitations ....................................................... 57


4.2.3
 Strengths of the SCRE Tool ........................................... 58


4.2.4
 Potential limitations of the SCRE Tool.......................... 59


4.3
 Recommendations for future research ........................................ 59


5
 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 61


References.................................................................................................. 62


Appendices................................................................................................. 73


xvi
List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1. The funnel metaphor (based on The Natural Step)..................... 7


Figure 2.1. Research stages ......................................................................... 21


Table 3.1. Community involvement in interviewed communities.............. 27


Table 3.2. Community engagement methods in interviewed communities 29


Table 3.3. Community involvement in surveyed communities .................. 30


Table 3.4. Community engagement methods in surveyed communities .... 31


Table 3.5. Benefits of CRE in interviewed communities............................ 32


Table 3.6. Benefits of CRE in surveyed communities ................................ 34


Table 3.7. Keys to success for interviewed communities ........................... 37


Table 3.8. Keys to success for surveyed communities................................ 39


Table 3.9. Challenges faced by interviewed communities.......................... 42


Table 3.10. Challenges faced by surveyed communities ............................ 43


Figure 4.1. SCRE Tool Stages and Guidelines ........................................... 56


xvii
1 Introduction

1.1 Sustainability and the energy challenge

The modern world relies on an enormous supply of energy to power

countless daily activities. This thesis will focus on electricity and heat
energy which is a sector in which demand is growing. In 1973, 6,116
terawatt hours of electricity were generated worldwide; by 2007 this had
increased to 19, 771 terawatt hours (IEA 2009). It is expected that demand
for electricity and heat will increase by 3.2 % per year until 2015, and then
by 2% per year between 2015 and 2030 (IEA 2008).

The majority of electricity and heat energy assists people in meeting their
basic human needs, among them the need for subsistence as defined by
Max-Neef and others (1989). Electricity can be indispensible to the ability
to cook, preserve food and medicines, and have access to efficient and
reliable lighting (IEA 2002), while heating helps those living in cold
climates stay warm. The way in which electricity and heat is generated and
distributed, however, is at odds with the ability of people to continue to
meet their needs into the future.

The main resources used to generate electricity and heat energy worldwide
are non-renewable fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, as well as non-
renewable nuclear materials. Coal is the most common fuel for electricity
generation, used in 41% of the world’s electricity generation (IEA 2008).

The pressing need for society to move towards sustainable energy solutions
is highlighted by systematically increasing greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from the use of fossil fuels. Additional problems include waste
from nuclear reactors that is dangerously radioactive for at least 10,000
years (Bodansky 2006), and energy insecurity of these resources from
increasing energy demand, declining availability, rising costs, and sourcing
from a small number of countries (IEA 2008).

Solutions that help society move towards a sustainable energy future must
take into consideration and address patterns of global inequality in energy
use. Currently there is highly unequal access to energy resources
worldwide: 75% of the world’s energy supply is consumed in wealthy,

1
industrialized countries (Omer 2009) while 1.6 billion people – a quarter of
the world’s population – have no access to electricity at all (IEA 2002).

Although access to electricity is unequal, the negative impacts of non-

renewable energy generation affect everyone, with developing countries
often the hardest hit. The United Nations Climate Change Conference
(COP15) held in December 2009 addressed sustainable energy as one of the
central themes in the global effort to address climate change. In its World
Energy Outlook for 2009 released prior to COP15, the International Energy
Agency (2009a, 3) acknowledged that:

Energy is at the heart of the problem – and so must form

the core of the solution. We need urgently to set in motion an
energy and environmental revolution, to transform the way we
use energy and to deliver a sustainable future.

This energy revolution needs to occur rapidly. Prior to COP15 the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the world’s
climate scientists, stressed that to reduce the risk of dangerous
anthropogenic climate change effects, global greenhouse gas emissions
must peak no later than 2015. It is estimated that this would ensure that
temperature increases be limited to between 2.0 and 2.4° C (IPCC 2009).

The failure of the COP15 negotiations to produce binding greenhouse gas

emissions cuts and renewable energy targets highlights the challenge of
reaching global solutions within required timeframes. However, although
binding agreements for more sustainable energy development on an
international level are at a stalemate, communities on the local level are
beginning to move towards sustainable energy generation around the world
(Hain 2005; Walker and others 2009; St Denis and Parker 2009).

This thesis examines these energy solutions found at the local level – what
we describe as ‘Community Renewable Energy’, or CRE. We focus on
communities in the developed world for comparability (concentrating on
North America, Europe and Australia) that are generating electricity and
heat energy in their communities using renewable resources. These are
communities where many citizens are no longer passive consumers of
energy but are actively helping shape their energy supply.

While acknowledging the positive contributions that CRE can make to

reducing the negative impacts of energy generation, we suggest

2
incorporating a Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD) approach to help
CRE projects avoid creating unintended negative impacts. The Strategic
Sustainable Development approach guides planning and decision making
by ensuring a vision of a sustainable future is established in order to
determine strategic actions, which are based on a clear definition of
sustainability.

This first section will review current non-renewable energy generation in

the developed world, place electricity and heat generation in the context of
the larger sustainability challenge, and present conditions that must be met
in order for CRE generation in the developed world to achieve
sustainability.

1.1.1 Energy sources in the developed world

All the countries included in this research are members of the OECD
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), which are
among the most developed countries in the world based on their high
income and high Human Development Index scores. The energy resources
used to generate electricity and heat vary for each country in the developed
world based on existing policies, regulations, geographic location, resource
availability and history. However, non-renewable energy use is dominant.

In 2007, OECD countries generated 62% of their electricity from fossil

fuels and 21% of their electricity from nuclear materials (IEA 2010). The
remaining 17% of electricity was generated using waste, hydro, geothermal,
solar PV, solar thermal, wind, tide and other sources (IEA 2010). Heat
energy was generated using 55% fossil fuels, with the rest coming from a
renewable source, predominantly geothermal energy (IEA 2010). Most
communities in the developed world therefore receive most of their
electrical and heat energy from non-renewable sources.

Fossil fuels are the result of geological forces compressing and heating
organic material under the Earth’s crust over extended geological time
periods. Fossil fuels have been forming for 500 million years, and have
only been in use in society for the past 250 years (Dukes 2003). They are
considered non-renewable due to the fact that the rate of human
consumption of these fuels is far exceeding their natural formation rate
within the Earth’s crust.

3
Although the fact that these resources are non-renewable is commonly
accepted, there is currently no consensus on how long supplies will last.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects that “the world’s energy
resources are adequate to meet the projected demand increase through to
2030 and well beyond” (IEA 2009). Other researchers, however, are not
convinced. Many scientists believe that there will be a marked decrease in
available oil within a decade (Leder and Shapiro 2008) in a phenomenon
known as ‘peak oil’ (Hubert 1982). Oil accounts for 5.6% of electricity and
heat energy generation in OECD countries (IEA 2010) and it is also used
extensively in the transport and extraction of other non-renewable fuels
such as coal, biomass and natural gas.

Other fossil fuels are also limited in supply and estimates vary as to when
peak production will be reached. Coal is used in a large percentage of
electricity and heat generation in OECD countries. The coal reserves in the
United States are some of the largest in the world. Some models suggest
that peak coal production will occur in the US in 2050, while other models
put peak production at around 2100 (Höök 2010). Supply will not just be
dependent on availability of these fossil fuels but will also be based on
economic, technical and regulatory restrictions to extraction and use (Höök
2010). Even if supplies of coal and other fossil fuels last, relying on them
puts the ecosphere and human health at risk, as detailed below.

Nuclear materials also have a finite supply. Uranium, used to generate

nuclear electricity, is non-renewable as it is a finite element in nature. A
recent policy brief by the Nuclear Energy Institute states that “uranium
resources are adequate to meet nuclear energy needs for at least the next
100 years at present consumption levels” (Nuclear Energy Institute 2009).
This time frame does not represent a long-term solution however, and
issues around nuclear energy are compounded by concerns around nuclear
waste and the risk of nuclear weapons development.

The geographic distribution of many non-renewable energy resources

worldwide has also led to social and political conflict. The majority of the
world’s remaining resources of oil and natural gas are located in countries
which are not always politically stable or politically aligned with the
countries that import their resources. Access to oil in particular is becoming
increasingly insecure and its price increasingly volatile, in part due to the
political situation in some of the leading oil-producing nations such as
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Nigeria, Iraq and Angola (OPEC 2009).

4
Although supplies of non-renewable energy resources do exist in developed
countries, these supplies are limited, and some are in forms in which the
extraction is very environmentally damaging. For example, Canada has oil
reserves in the form of ‘tar sands’, but extraction of this resource requires
huge amounts of energy (natural gas is commonly used). The associated
environmental impacts on Canada’s ecosystems have been devastating
(Nikiforuk 2008). Coal reserves are found in large quantities in developed
countries; however, the extraction and use of coal has more impact in terms
of carbon dioxide emissions than does the use of other fossil fuels. Coal
creates almost twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy as natural
gas, and 50% more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than oil (Energy
Information Administration 1994).

Globally, the use of all non-renewable fossil fuels to generate energy is the
major contributor to systematically increasing greenhouse gas emissions
(IPCC 2007). When fossil fuels are combusted to generate energy, carbon is
released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), which
changes the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is now global
scientific consensus that the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is
the leading cause of human-induced climate change, with observed changes
in sea level, increases in global average temperatures, and widespread
melting of snow and ice (IPCC 2007a). Global dependence on fossil fuels
has led to the release of over 1,100 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere
since the mid 19th century (IPCC 2007). Today, energy generation accounts
for 26% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2007a) –
the single largest source of emissions from human activity and a major
contribution to anthropogenic climate change.

Other environmental impacts of using fossil fuels and nuclear materials to

generate energy include air pollution, acid rain, waste disposal issues
relating to nuclear materials, and the risk of nuclear accidents causing
widespread environmental damage (Dincer 1999). When fossil fuels are
burned, they may emit enough pollutants to contribute to 700 000 deaths
each year (Omer 2009). The extraction of fossil fuels and uranium can
cause widespread environmental impacts including destruction of natural
areas as well as soil and water pollution (Dincer 2000).

5
1.1.2 Energy systems in the developed world

Energy systems to generate and supply electricity and heat to consumers in

the developed world have been designed around the use of non-renewable
fuels. In the 20th century, most communities in the developed world became
reliant on energy that was generated from non-renewable fuels in large,
centralized facilities far from the users. These centralized plants developed
as a result of technological advances which created economies of scale for
large facilities and transmission grids that span wide areas (Pepermans and
others 2005).

Consequently, most community members have little control over, or

participation in, energy generation. Centralized energy generation usually
means that expertise and decision-making is concentrated in a few hands
(Alanne and Saari 2006), thus reinforcing the social disconnection between
energy generation and consumption. Large-scale centralized generation and
distribution of energy has resulted in citizens who are passive and
disconnected consumers of energy (Harper 2009). This effect is what
Walker and others refer to as “significant spatial and psychological distance
between energy generation and use” (2007, 68). Centralized energy
generation has also been criticized for creating significant inefficiencies in
production and distribution over long distances, and for being unstable and
at risk of disruption (Carley 2009).

Energy generation alternatives that do not rely on a centralized system are

an important alternative that can involve local people and make use of
local, renewable resources.

1.1.3 Introduction to Strategic Sustainable

Development

The use and impacts of using non-renewable energy resources, discussed

above, can be viewed as part of a wider sustainability challenge faced by
humanity. This sustainability challenge can be visualized using the
metaphor of a funnel (see Figure 1.1). The closing walls of the funnel
represent the constraints that are currently limiting society’s ability to meet
human needs now and into the future, and highlight the fact that these
constraints will become more pronounced if humanity continues on the
current path of systematically deteriorating global ecological systems and
social wellbeing.

6
 Figure 1.1. The funnel metaphor (based on The Natural Step)

The sustainability challenge is multifaceted. Firstly, many natural resources

are being depleted at an increasing rate globally. Some of these resources
are non-renewable, but in many cases renewable resources such as forests
and fisheries are also being depleted at a rate that is much faster than they
can be regenerated (UNEP 2010b). At the same time, human population is
increasing. Today there are 6.9 billion people on the planet and it is
expected that by 2050 the world’s human population will be 9 billion (UN
Population Division 2009). An increasing population generally means an
increasing demand for resources. Although population growth has slowed
in the developed world, there has also been an increasing demand for
resources and energy as the standard of living has risen. In the case of

7
energy, primary1 energy demands are expected to increase by 1.5 - 3 times
by 2050 (Dincer 1999).

Human demand for and use of energy and other services and products
creates systematic increases in waste, which take the form of air, water and
soil pollutants, greenhouse gases, and solid wastes that end up in landfills
and in oceans. Many of these pollutants and solid wastes take a very long
time to breakdown in nature. Despite the common belief that there is an
unlimited availability of resources and waste assimilation capacity, Earth is
a system that is closed to matter, meaning that no matter enters or leaves the
system. It is clear that on a finite planet, the current systematic depletion of
non-renewable resources, the systematic destruction of natural systems on
which society relies, and the dispersal of waste and pollution through the
Earth’s system cannot continue indefinitely.

The inability of some segments of the population to meet their needs is

interwoven with these other issues. Increases in disease in some areas of the
world, political strife, social strife and other pathologies can be seen as
interconnected with problems of increase in demand for a limited supply of
decreasing resources. Manfred Max-Neef (1991, 15), a prominent
economist and environmentalist, describes the complexity in this way:

In much the same way that a disease is a medical problem, and

that the same disease having become an epidemic transcends the
field of medicine, our present challenge lies not only in how to
deal with problems, but also in how to cope with the tremendous
magnitude of the problems. Their growing magnitude and
complexity is transforming problisciplinary contours into
problem complexes of a diffuse transdisciplinary character.

In the funnel metaphor, the closing walls of the funnel indicate a narrowing
range of opportunities to change unsustainable practices within a decreasing
timeframe, as the resources that society relies on are depleted and wastes

1
Primary energy is energy contained in raw forms (this includes fossil fuels and nuclear
materials) which have not yet been transformed, or in direct inputs from renewable sources
(wind, solar, biomass, etc.).

8
build up in the system. If an industry or a society ‘hits the walls of the
funnel’, it runs into issues that cause it to collapse and no longer be able to
support itself. For a society this could include running out of resources and
facing major environmental consequences or social upheaval. Humanity
must navigate through the funnel using strategic actions moving towards
sustainable practices in order to eventually achieve a sustainable society.

In order to address the complexity of the current sustainability challenge, a

Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD) approach is essential. An SSD
approach consists of elements such as:

• Whole systems thinking – a mindset that assists an individual,

organization or society to see their contribution to sustainability
problems now and into the future. This includes upstream thinking
and an appreciation of the cause and effect between actions;
• ‘Backcasting from Principles’ – a planning process that requires
people to first decide what a desired future would look like in
accordance with principles for success, and then set the intention of
reaching that success state. In contrast to a forecasting or scenario
planning approach determined by the current reality, backcasting
from principles works backwards from a common vision of success,
and helps maintain strategic direction in all steps towards fulfilment
of the vision, changing and modifying actions along the way.
• Assessment of current performance against principles for
sustainability (presented below);
• Selection of strategic steps to move towards the vision by choosing
between alternatives in a way that ensures selection of flexible
platforms (to avoid running into dead ends), movement in the right
direction towards the vision, and the selection of actions and
investments that create sufficient return on investment (social,
financial, political, etc.) to sustain progress towards the vision; and
• Demonstrating leadership and engaging others to create a greater
societal shift towards sustainability.

As part of a Strategic Sustainable Development approach, Karl-Henrik

Robèrt, a Swedish cancer scientist, sought to describe a scientifically-based
set of principles that could contribute to a clear understanding of
sustainability. Over a 20-year peer review process, Robèrt and other
scientists worldwide have developed four Sustainability Principles that

9
must be met in order to achieve sustainability (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000;
Ny and others 2006). These four Sustainability Principles state that:

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing...

1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;

2. concentrations of substances produced by society; and
3. degradation by physical means.

And, in that society...

4. people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their

capacity to meet their needs.

Measured against these principles, renewable energy generation can

minimize impacts compared to centralized non-renewable energy
generation, but in the long-term using renewable energy may still be
unsustainable if it continues to contribute to violations of the four
Sustainability Principles. Applying a systems approach and looking at CRE
projects through the lens of the four Sustainability Principles, we are able to
identify potential negative impacts from renewable energy generation.
These contributions to the violations of the Sustainability Principles can
include:

• Destruction of the ecosphere via the use of mined materials

originating from the Earth’s crust for the production of renewable
energy technologies (for example, metals used in the construction of
wind turbines and solar panels);
• Destruction of the ecosphere via the burning of fossil fuels for the
transportation of renewable energy resources used in renewable
energy projects (for example, transport of biomass to generation
facilities);
• Destruction of the ecosphere via the use and/or creation of persistent
and unnatural substances produced by society due to the renewable
energy technology used (for example, dioxins produced from the
burning of waste for heat generation);
• Systematic degradation of the ecosphere by physical means via land
clearing to build CRE facilities and associated infrastructure;
• Systematic degradation of the ecosphere by physical means via poor
management of natural areas harvested for energy sources (for

10
 example, biomass harvested from a forest in a way that decreases
the biomass more quickly than it can regenerate); and
• Destruction of the social fabric and/or undermining the capacity of
people to meet their needs as a result of abusive or restrictive
practices involved in renewable energy projects (for example,
burning biomass in a way that generates pollutants that impact the
health of people living nearby).

This means that switching to renewable energy is not an automatic solution

to the sustainability challenge, and is certainly not a stand-alone solution.
Our challenge is to determine how communities can work towards
complying with these Sustainability Principles in the generation of
renewable energy, avoiding unforeseen negative impacts in order to
contribute to progress towards sustainability worldwide.

1.2 Community Renewable Energy

In the face of the current failure of global efforts like COP15 to address the
unsustainable nature of the world’s energy production, one of the main
areas for optimism is found at the local level, where communities around
the world are starting to reduce their use of non-renewable energy and
develop their own renewable energy within relatively short time periods. In
the literature, this local renewable energy generation is variously referred to
as ‘community energy’ (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008, Rogers and
others 2008), ‘Energy Sustainable Communities’ (Schweizer-Ries 2008),
‘community energy initiatives’ (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009), or
‘community-led energy projects’ (Hinshelwood 2001; St Denis and Parker
2009).

In the next section we explore ‘Community Renewable Energy’ (CRE) in

literature, explain our definition of CRE in the scope of this research, and
outline the ways that CRE may contribute to more sustainable energy
development and more widely, help address the global sustainability
challenge.

1.2.1 Definition of Community Renewable Energy

By ‘community’, we refer to a social group of any size with geographical

proximity amongst its members (United Nations 2010), such as a

11
neighbourhood, town, district or city where people can interact face to face;
what Walker (2008) refers to as ‘communities of locality’.

There is currently no consensus in the literature on the definition of CRE.

Rogers and others (2008, 4217) define a community energy scheme as an:

Installation of one or more renewable energy technologies in or

close to a community, with input from members of that
community. The scheme must benefit the community - either
directly through supply of energy to multiple properties or a
community facility, or indirectly, for example through sale of
energy generated to the grid. Community members’ input may
be in various forms, for example project initiation,
administration, construction, financial support, or decision-
making.

Walker and Devine-Wright’s (2008) research emphasizes that ‘community

energy’ is not solely related to local generation, or to community
involvement, but relates to the social process of establishing energy
technology locally, with social and economic benefits accruing to that
community (2008). In this way, CRE is about the social arrangements
around how renewable energy that contributes to the sustainability solution
is implemented and brings benefit to people (Walker and Cass 2007).

Since there is no consensus in the literature on one definition of CRE, we

have chosen to define CRE as comprising of three main features that have
appeared in the literature:

• Renewable energy generation within the community;

• Community involvement; and
• Benefits to the community from renewable energy generation.

Each of these features is defined and expanded upon below.

Ideally CRE comprises a community producing enough energy to cover the

full electricity and heating needs of residents. In reality, communities are
working towards full CRE in their community on a project-by-project basis
or have a single CRE project that generates part of all the electricity and
heating needed by the community from renewable resources. Similarly,
many communities with renewable energy generation are in the process of

12
building envisioned levels of community involvement and increasing
benefits from the project in the community.

1.2.2 Community Renewable Energy generation

Since the development of national electricity distribution grids, consumers

have come to think of heat and electricity as commodities supplied over
great distances. However, despite the dominance of centralized non-
renewable electricity and heat generation in the developed world, energy
can be produced locally, drawing on renewable energy sources best suited
to local conditions and resources. Instead of producing a large amount of
energy in a few places and using very inefficient long-distance transmission
cables to deliver it, it is possible to produce smaller amounts of power in
many places from the most appropriate renewable sources. Energy can
then be fed back into the distribution network, or potentially consumed
locally via localized distribution networks.

Renewable energy sources may be used for one or more of three different
types of energy generation focused on in this research:

1. Electricity generation;
2. Heat generation; and
3. Heat energy generated as a by-product of electrical energy
generation – cogeneration, usually termed ‘combined heat and
power’ (CHP).

The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines renewable energy as

energy sources that, “apart from geothermal energy, are drawn directly or
indirectly from current or recent flows of the constantly available solar and
gravitational energy” (2005, 19). This research focuses on communities
using renewable energy sources. Across the 21 communities we researched,
these renewable energy sources included:

• Solar;
• Wind;
• Biogas;
• Biomass;
• Geothermal; and
• Run-of-the-river hydropower.

13
Although there are environmental and social benefits associated with
consuming the energy produced in a community locally (St Denis and
Parker 2009; Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009; Walker 2008), it is not
always legally possible for communities to distribute energy locally, or it
may not be economically feasible to do so. This research therefore covers
CRE where energy is both produced and consumed locally (such as in a
district heating system), and where energy is produced locally, but fed back
into the wider electricity grid.

1.2.3 Community involvement

The second feature of CRE is community involvement. There is wide

recognition of the importance of community involvement in the literature
(St Denis and Parker 2009, Walker 2008, Rogers and others 2008, Walker
and Devine-Wright 2008, Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009). Hoffman and
High-Pippert (2009) emphasize that by creating a system with participation
of local people, CRE becomes an energy system that reflects local needs,
values and resources. Because it is local people who are involved, they are
personally invested in the outcome. This can provide impetus for CRE to be
more than just a policy or plan, and aid energy development that is
informed by knowledge of local conditions, and supported by a network of
local conditions found in businesses, community groups, educational
institutes and government institutions.

The following methods for community involvement in CRE projects found

in literature are sourced from Walker 2008; Rogers and others 2008;
Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009; Michalena and Angeon 2003; Middlemiss
and Parrish 2009; Madlener 2007; Jobert and others 2007; and Hvelplund
2006. Options of community involvement from these sources include:

Initiation. Project initiated by community members, or community

members invited to be involved in a decision-making platform.

Ownership. Full or partial ownership by members of the community:

• 100% community owned through self-funding, often with

Government or inter-Governmental funding grants;
• Co-ownership with a private sector organization. For example,
community owns one turbine in a larger commercial wind farm;
• Cooperative ownership: people in the community are members of a

14
 cooperative that finances a renewable energy project;
• Community charities: an association with charitable status runs a
community facility such as a village hall with renewable energy;
• Shares owned by a local community organization;
• Individual investment: community members buy shares in a
localized renewable energy project, advertised or offered to them
directly.

Project design, decision-making, management and administration within

the community. This is done by or on behalf of community members, in the
form of elected Municipality Councillors, a community-elected Board, or
community representation on a community-owned energy company
Steering Committee.

Engagement of community members. Understanding of a project is

increased and occasional input from the wider community is sought via:

• Working Groups: to create active input from interested members of

the community, particularly those with relevant skills or
professional experience;
• Community meetings: to update community members, seek input to
guide the project, and vote on major decisions for CRE;
• Education events: to ensure a high level of community
understanding, such as site visits, open days, energy expos, training
events, or schools programs;
• Information: brochures, websites, media coverage, and outreach
through social institutions such as churches help increase the
knowledge of a local renewable energy project amongst community
members.

Different methods of involvement have different implications for

community members; however, it is problematic to specify how people
should be involved in all cases given the unique contexts of community
needs, histories and the CRE vision. Instead, this thesis includes case
studies with different ownership models and types of community
participation. In each case local people are involved in some ongoing way.
Overall, the thesis identifies what community involvement methods are
most utilized across the studied CRE projects.

15
1.2.4 Community benefits

The third feature of CRE is community benefits from renewable energy

generation. By involving local people in the initiation or ongoing
development of CRE projects, significant benefits can be created that may
not be realized in renewable energy projects where the community is not
involved. Warren and McFayden’s study of a community-owned windfarm
on the island of Gigha in Scotland found that “bottom-up projects can
deliver a range of benefits which do not materialise from top–down,
corporate developments” (Warren and McFayden 2010, 209). In addition,
research overwhelmingly suggests that if local people are not involved and
benefits are not shared amongst community members, there is much less
acceptance of renewable energy projects, and active opposition may occur
(Walker 2008; Walker and Cass 2007; Walker and Devine-Wright 2008;
Jobert and others 2007; Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009; Schweizer-Ries
2008; del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009; Michalena and Angeon 2003; and
Hvelplund 2006).

Here we present the community benefits of CRE highlighted in literature

review, presented in social, economic, political, and environmental
categories. Based on this understanding we investigated these possible
benefits and looked for others in the actual experience of communities
undertaking CRE projects.

Social benefits. Some communities experience an increase in local

knowledge about sustainability from CRE (del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009;
Warren and McFadyen 2010), sometimes aided by the development of
renewable energy education centres (del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009) which
help inform the public about renewable energy. This increased knowledge
may contribute to an increased local environmental commitment (Walker
2008). Increased knowledge may also help community members establish a
clear link between local generation and local consumption (St Denis and
Parker 2008) and be more aware of where their energy comes from.
Hoffman and High-Pippert (2009) report an elevated sense of community
cohesion and social and civic gratification in communities which undertake
CRE projects. On top of these benefits, many communities experience an
improved image and reputation of their local areas from CRE projects
(Michalena and Angeon 2003).

Economic benefits. Economic benefits resulting from CRE projects are

16
commonly cited in literature. Many authors report local job creation as a
result of CRE (St Denis and Parker 2009; Walker 2008; Hoffman and High-
Pippert 2009; del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009; Michalena and Angeon 2003;
European Parliament 2009) as well as local employment diversification (del
Rı´o and Burguillo 2009). Increased employment, which generates local
income, is also credited with enhancing local economic development in the
community (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009; del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009;
Michalena and Angeon 2003; Van Hoesen 2010; European Parliament
2009; Walker 2008). Many communities experience local economic
development through an increase in tourism (Warren and McFadyen 2010).

Community members benefit in many cases by experiencing reduced

energy costs (St Denis and Parker 2009; del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009;
Walker 2008; Van Hoesen 2010; Jennings and Healey 2001) and a reduced
dependence on outside, non-renewable energy sources (Jennings and
Healey 2001). Individual investors in CRE in the community also receive
income and tax benefits (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009). It is not just
community members that can benefit economically, but also Municipalities,
in the form of tax and land rental income (del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009).
Some CRE project operators also experience reduced maintenance and
operating costs (Cosmi and others 2003) in comparison to non-CRE
projects, and often one CRE project leads to new CRE projects being
undertaken in the community (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009).

Technical benefits. Technical benefits of establishing CRE projects include

an increased reliability of energy supply due to utilizing localized energy
sources (Walker 2008). There are also often shorter transport distances,
reduced energy transmission losses and increased energy efficiencies (Van
Hoesen 2010; European Parliament 2009). In many cases, producing energy
locally helps to ensure that energy supply better meets demand (St Denis
and Parker 2008).

Political benefits. Establishing a CRE project has been shown in some

cases to contribute to progress in government and international emissions
reductions targets (Warren and McFadyen 2010; Cosmi and others 2003).
CRE can also increase local control over energy, and the security of energy
supply for a community (Walker 2008; Michalena and Angeon 2003;
European Parliament 2009). CRE can also give communities independence
from increasingly strained energy networks (Van Hoesen 2010).

17
Environmental benefits. As a result of CRE projects, some communities
recognise the benefit of achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions (St
Denis and Parker 2009; Cosmi and others 2003).

These benefits demonstrate the many reasons why CRE can be important
for a community across a wide range of areas. Although benefits will be
different for each community, we expected that reported benefits such as
these would act as incentives that create motivation for communities to
initiate CRE projects.

1.3 Research focus: Sustainable Community

Renewable Energy

Above we discussed the contribution of current electricity and heat

generation to the global sustainability challenge, including the fact that:

• Most electricity and heat is generated from decreasing non-

renewable sources, many of which are anticipated to reach a ‘peak’
of production within this century;
• Energy generation accounts for 26% of global anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions - the single largest source of emissions
from human activity, and a major contribution to human-induced
climate change;
• Energy systems are centralized, disconnecting people from their
energy generation;
• Energy demand is rising globally; and
• A quarter of the world’s population - 1.6 billion people - currently
have no access to electricity, which impacts the fulfilment of their
basic human needs, and is likely to swell future energy demand.

Although CRE can provide some solutions to the sustainability challenges

outlined above, it may still have unintended negative impacts unless a
community is progressing strategically towards sustainability. This research
seeks to integrate the development of CRE in the developed world with an
SSD approach, in order to help communities interested in developing CRE
projects, or already underway with CRE projects, ensure that they are
moving towards sustainable energy generation – what we term Sustainable
Community Renewable Energy, or SCRE.

18
There is relatively limited research that examines case studies with local
renewable energy generation, community involvement and intentionally
designed community benefits, and more information sharing needs to occur
between CRE practitioners. Information exchange is already happening
within some regions and countries and amongst some specialist groups but
rarely on an international scale between communities. As a result of this
research, a tool will be produced that shares keys to success from CRE case
studies across the developed world, which can support any community to
develop and be involved in CRE, and which includes an SSD approach.
The combination of learning from the experience of CRE projects across
the developed world through interviews, questionnaires and literature
review, and adding an SSD approach to CRE, makes this research both
unique and of value to communities in leading the transition towards
sustainable energy generation.

1.3.1 Research scope

This research includes communities from the developed world, and

specifically from Europe, North America, and Australia, who have
successfully established or sought to establish CRE project(s) that include
renewable energy generation in the form of electricity or heat, with some
form of community involvement, and the creation of benefits for the local
community.

The following elements are excluded from our research focus:

• Non-renewable energy generation, including nuclear;

• Large scale hydro projects;
• Renewable energy produced for transport, such as biofuels or
biogas;
• Renewable energy projects that do not involve local community
members in some way;
• Renewable energy projects that do not create benefits for
community members; and
• Energy efficiency/energy conservation/energy savings/energy
demand management.

CRE in developing countries has also been excluded. This was partly to
create a more realistic scope for our research, as well as reflecting the
locations we could reach through our existing networks and gain input from

19
via internet-based questionnaires in English. We have reservations about
making conclusions about common success factors in developing countries
based on the experience of developed countries due to the different
technical, economic, political and social contexts these communities are
likely to face. Despite the diversity of influencing factors within Europe,
North America and Australia, it was assumed that the degree of shared
experience would allow for a higher degree of comparison than if
communities in developing countries were also included.

1.3.2 Research questions

This research is guided by three primary research questions:

1. What benefits and community involvement methods are present in

studied CRE projects?
2. What are the keys to success and challenges for communities
implementing CRE projects?
3. How can a Strategic Sustainable Development approach be applied
and used to move CRE projects towards sustainability?

20
2 Methods

2.1 Research stages

In this section we will outline the research stages described in Figure 2.1,
which describe the process we followed in our research. Below we will
explain the aim of each research stage, the methods employed in each stage,
and the data validation used for each method.

Figure 2.1. Research stages

2.1.1 Stage One: Develop initial research

In Stage One we designed guiding research questions and selected

appropriate research approaches and methods, consulting literature on
qualitative research methods to guide our research. We then conducted a
review of existing literature on CRE, discussed our definition of CRE with
colleagues and advisors, and devised the criteria for communities we would
approach for interviews and questionnaires.

Peer reviewed literature on CRE included articles relating to renewable

energy technologies and renewable energy development on a local scale,
distribution approaches, community involvement in CRE, challenges to

21
establishing CRE, and benefits and keys to success as identified by other
academics. We also sought negative impacts caused by CRE projects.

Using existing literature, we developed a working definition of CRE that

guided our research. Since there was a vast array of views and some
disagreement in the literature on the exact definition of CRE, we chose to
define CRE as renewable energy generation within the community that
incorporates some degree of community involvement and benefits for the
community. Because there were different views on the best distribution
option for locally generated energy, we decided to inquire about the
distribution method of studied CRE projects rather than define a required
distribution method as necessary for our definition of CRE.

Based on literature review and discussion with academic advisers, we

developed eight main areas of focus to guide our four research stages. The
eight main areas of focus were:

1. Technologies used in CRE projects;

2. Distribution of energy generated from CRE projects;
3. Community involvement in CRE projects (involving information on
project initiators, project management, ownership and community
engagement methods);
4. Benefits experienced by communities undertaking CRE projects;
5. Negative impacts experienced by communities undertaking CRE
projects;
6. Keys to success experienced by communities undertaking CRE
projects;
7. Challenges in establishing CRE projects; and
8. Methods or approaches taken by communities to overcome
challenges when undertaking CRE projects.

Using these areas of focus, we developed questions for in-person interviews

and questionnaires (see Appendix B for a full list of questions) in order to
ensure consistency in the information gathered using different methods.

To identify interview and questionnaire participants, we distributed requests

for contribution through networks in our home countries and renewable
energy social media sites, conducted Internet research, looked for case
studies in renewable energy reports, and made email approaches to
identified communities through email.

22
Data validation. The interview and questionnaire questions were sent to our
advisors and colleagues for review, and feedback was incorporated.

2.1.2 Stage Two: Conduct active field research

We identified eight communities undertaking CRE projects in Sweden,

Denmark, and Germany and approached a key person in each community to
ascertain whether they would participate in a one and a half hour interview.
These communities were selected based on:

• Location (whether we could travel to the communities);

• Language considerations (whether we spoke the language or had a
translator);
• Whether the CRE project(s) included all 3 CRE features; and
• Whether the CRE project(s) allowed us to explore a range of
renewable energy types across interviews (solar, biomass, biogas,
wind etc.).

We conducted 11 interviews using a semi-standard interview method.

However, during the interviews, we did not strictly adhere to the order of
questions, but followed discussion that arose out of questions, and posed
the next focus area question that flowed from there in order to increase
rapport and ease for the interviewee. For interviews we did not ask
interviewees to rate or quantify their responses, but asked follow up
questions to try and ensure full coverage of the question.

We used our team in such a way that we had one team member acting as
the primary interviewer, one note-taker and one team member ensuring that
all questions were covered. In Germany, we used an interpreter as the
interviewees only spoke German.

Data validation. For interviews, we crosschecked our individual write up of

interview notes across all team members to ensure a shared interpretation.
For German interviews, although our interpreter was highly skilled in
interpretation, and had knowledge of renewable energy, it was unrealistic to
crosscheck our English interview notes past him to check his memory of
how the idea had been phrased in German. We made an effort to write
down direct words as we heard them from the translator, but there is a
likelihood of a slight difference between what the interviewee said, what
was translated, and what was recorded by us.

23
In addition to interviews, we identified just under 200 communities
undertaking CRE projects in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and
Europe as potential recipients of our CRE questionnaire. These
communities were selected based on:

• Location (to ensure a sufficient geographic spread of projects in our

research across the developed world);
• Whether the CRE project(s) included all 3 CRE features; and
• Whether the CRE project(s) allowed us to explore a range of
renewable energy types (solar, biomass, biogas, etc.).

Of 200 communities contacted, 14 communities completed the

questionnaire.

To develop the questionnaire, we used Survey Monkey, an online survey

software tool that enabled us to customize a tailored questionnaire to
distribute to an unlimited amount of participants. The questionnaire
followed our interview questions to maintain consistency in our research
and help ensure ease in data collection and analysis across these two
methods. However, questionnaires included more quantitative analysis than
interviews, asking respondents for example to rate the level of community
involvement on a scale of 1-5, and then to give details of community
engagement methods used. We gave those who took the questionnaire the
ability to go back and review their responses within the submission period.

Data validation. There is an inherent difficulty in analyzing qualitative data

using quantitative methods. Resources were consulted to develop a coding
system that captures stated content from interviews, responses to
questionnaires and written case study material as accurately as possible.
Quantitative results were reviewed as a group by comparing data against
original interview notes and summary tables.

2.1.3 Stage Three: Analyze CRE data

In stage three we analyzed results from literature review, interviews and

questionnaires. Because the data from each method was slightly different
due to the format in which it was received and the range of experiences of
each community in each defined CRE feature, we needed to design a
comparison method that would help us capture the diversity of responses
and yet also determine commonalities.

24
After our interviews, we compiled all data gathered in notes and quotations
into spreadsheets under the eight main focus areas. A separate spreadsheet
was then developed for each focus area, bringing together the data from
every interview in that focus area. Within each focus area (such as benefits
or keys to success) we developed categories and subcategories based on the
range of all the data and discussion with our adviser. In order to process our
raw data from the interviews, we developed a coding system where all
comments were tagged with a category and subcategory code. For example,
a stated benefit of reduced emissions would be tagged in the spreadsheet
with the category and subcategory code En/GG to represent an
environmental benefit (En environment category) of greenhouse gas
emissions savings (GG greenhouse gas subcategory).

For data processing from the questionnaire, we downloaded results from the
online Survey Monkey platform and used a similar quantitative data
analysis method and cross comparison analysis. However due to the fact
that many of the questions were asked in multiple-choice format, much of
the information was already in categories and quantified, which aided our
analysis. For questions that were open-ended, text was gathered, tagged,
and analyzed using the same process outlined above for interview data.
When possible, the same subcategory codes were used to allow for
comparison across interviews and questionnaires.

We compared the quantitative data collected from interviews and

questionnaires to uncover trends. The outcomes of this research stage
provided answers to our first two research questions.

2.1.4 Stage Four: Apply a Strategic Sustainable

Development approach

In stage four, we sought to answer our third research question and

investigate how an SSD approach could be applied to CRE and support
communities in initiating or developing CRE projects that are moving
towards SCRE. In order to do this we identified the elements of SSD from
literature and determined what this would involve for a CRE project. We
then synthesized these SSD elements with the key finding from research
question one and two to create guidance for CRE projects wishing to move
towards sustainable energy generation.

25
3 Results

This section presents our research findings from literature review, semi-
structured interviews, questionnaire analysis and SSD application to CRE.
Results are presented in the following sections as per our three research
questions:

Section 3.1: Findings on the range of experiences of community

involvement and benefits received by studied communities;
Section 3.2: Keys to success, challenges and methods of
overcoming challenges, as identified by communities;
Section 3.3: Application of an SSD approach to CRE, and
integration of the SSD approach for CRE in guidance for CRE
projects wanting to move towards SCRE.

From our two active research methods (semi-structured interviews and

questionnaires) we gathered information from 21 communities in seven
different countries in the developed world. Two communities did not want
to be named, so they are identified as ‘Anonymous Austria’ (Anonymous
A) and ‘Anonymous Canada’ (Anonymous C), and one interviewee from
the Municipality of Prenzlau, Germany, is referenced as ‘Anonymous
Prenzlau 1’.

Eleven interviews were conducted in eight different communities. For

questionnaires, from just under 200 identified CRE communities in North
America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, 37 people visited and started
the survey, yet only 14 completed the survey. The community of Thisted
was included via two different research methods – questionnaire and
interview, bringing the total number of communities for some Results
sections to 22. Not all surveyed or interviewed communities answered
every question, so they have been left out of individual tables where they
did not provide a response. To see the full details and regional spread of
studied communities, see Appendix A.

3.1 Key features of CRE

Only communities who had projects that included the three central features
of CRE (renewable energy generation, community involvement, and
community benefits) were selected as participants for interviews and

26
questionnaires. Through our research we found a breadth of experience for
each of these CRE features. In the following section we present findings for
community involvement and community benefits. Although there was
renewable energy generation in each of the studied communities, we do not
present the types of renewable energy generation found in this section. This
information can be found in Appendix A.

3.1.1 Community involvement

Interview results. In communities in which we conducted interviews we

found a wide range of experience in the extent to which community
members are involved in CRE projects. The numbers in Table 3.1 refer to
initiation, ownership and management in distinct projects within studied
communities (a community may be listed more than once in each section if
they have more than one CRE project, which has different initiation,
management and ownership features).

Table 3.1. Community involvement in interviewed communities

The experience of interviewed communities was that the largest percentage

reported projects were initiated by the Municipal Government (33% of

27
projects), the community2 (25% of projects), or a community owned energy
company (25%). Ownership was also heavily concentrated on the
Municipal level (43%). Other forms of community ownership included
community members jointly owning shares (14% of projects), private
ownership by community members (14%), ownership by a farmers’
cooperative (14%). Reiffenhausen’s biogas district heating scheme was
initiated and owned by a community energy cooperative3. Management was
also heavily concentrated in the hands of Municipal Governments or
community-owned energy companies, with 42% of projects managed by
the Municipality or community energy company on behalf of the
community.

Interviewed communities also engage community members around CRE

using many innovative methods, both in-person and via media. The most
common engagement methods used by interviewed communities were
community meetings (63% of communities), the development of
educational materials (63%), education programs in schools (63%),
educational events (50%), the use of media (50%), websites with CRE
information (50%), and the establishment of Working Groups of
community members (50%). To see all engagement methods employed in
interviewed communities, see Table 3.2.

2
In our definition of CRE, ‘community’ can include a Municipal Government, a
community-owned energy company, a group of residents, a cooperative or a community
organization. To find out who specifically was involved in a CRE project, we asked
interviewees to distinguish between these groups. Therefore, in this case, ‘community’
refers to a group of residents who initiate a CRE project.
3
A cooperative is a joint ownership model whereby community members purchase an
ownership share in the energy organization, and share in mutual benefits resulting from the
organization.

28
 Table 3.2. Community engagement methods in interviewed communities

Questionnaire results. Questionnaire respondents also had a diversity of

experience in community involvement in CRE projects. Surveyed
communities had a high rate of community initiation, with 63% of projects
initiated by residents, as seen in Table 3.3. Ownership of projects in
surveyed communities was the ‘community’ in 28% of projects, a
community energy cooperative (22%), or a national government (17%).
Respondents were also asked to self-rate the level of community

29
involvement in their CRE project, with 54% rating community involvement
as high or very high.

Table 3.3. Community involvement in surveyed communities

From questionnaires, community engagement methods were similar, with

community meetings in use in 50% of communities, and educational events
(40%) and the use of media (30%) the next most common methods for
engaging the wider community in CRE projects. All engagement methods
in use in surveyed communities are listed in Table 3.4.

30
 Table 3.4. Community engagement methods in surveyed communities

Trends in community involvement from interviews and questionnaires.

Across interviews and questionnaires, the types of engagement techniques
used were fairly similar, with the most common engagement methods
being:
• Community meetings, occurring in 9 out of 18 communities (50%);
• Education events (44% of communities);
• Media (39%);
• Educational materials (33%);
• Schools-based education (33%); and
• Website (33%).

31
Interviewed communities, with higher levels of initiation, management and
ownership by municipalities, used on average a greater number of methods
to engage the community in CRE projects (6.25 methods compared to 2.8
in surveyed communities). Frederikshavn, aspiring to be an ‘Energy City’
using 100% renewable energy by 2015, used the highest number of
engagement methods, with 11 different methods identified. Interviewed
communities also had a higher rate of initiation, ownership and
management by municipal governments or community-owned energy
companies, whereas surveyed case studies had a wider diversity of
ownership types, including a greater number of directly community-owned
CRE projects.

3.1.2 Community benefits

Interview results. We asked interview participants to identify benefits that

they felt their communities had experienced as a result of CRE. Their self-
identified benefits are presented in full in Table 3.5. Interviews showed that
all communities reported at least one type of benefit, with communities on
average reporting six different types of benefits arising from CRE projects.

Table 3.5. Benefits of CRE in interviewed communities

32
The emphasis on economic benefits is very pronounced. Out of 39 reported
benefits from interviews, 54% were economic. One of the most common
economic benefits was that customers in the community have experienced
cost savings on energy as a result of the CRE project(s), evident in 50% of
interviewed communities. In Neustrelitz, the price for heating for customers
was reduced immediately after the biomass plant was built (Haase 2010). In
Reiffenhausen, biogas-powered district heating is no more expensive than
what customers were paying for oil, and is expected to be far cheaper in the
long run (Christoph 2010).

‘General economic growth’ was another community benefit reported by

50% of interview participants. The community of Thisted reported general
business growth as a result of their CRE projects (Bolt-Jørgensen 2010). On
Ærø Island, the fact that the community owns the CRE projects means that
money, which might have gone to companies with headquarters off the
island, stays on the island (Heinemann 2010). For example, Ærø farmers
sell straw to one of the district heating plants, where it is used as biomass.
The money from this transaction stays on the island and promotes economic
growth. The community of Prenzlau also reported indirect economic
benefits from having businesses and companies settle in the area
(Anonymous Prenzlau 1 2010).

‘Community branding and improved image’ was reported as an important

social benefit in 30% of interviewed communities. Due in part to marketing
and media coverage of their CRE projects, Thisted and the FolkeCentre for
Renewable Energy in Hurup have had visits from international visitors and
renewable energy tourists interested in learning from their example, as well
as potentially partnering with local businesses (Bolt-Jørgensen 2010).

Questionnaire results. We asked communities who were sent the

questionnaire to identify benefits they had experienced from a list of
potential benefits. They were also given the option to identify other benefits
that their community have experienced. A full list of benefits experienced
by surveyed communities is shown in Table 3.6.

33
 Table 3.6. Benefits of CRE in surveyed communities

The most commonly reported benefits from the questionnaire are social,
with all communities reporting at least two social benefits. All 10
communities reported that ‘Understanding of climate change and renewable
energy increased in the community’, while 90% of communities reported
that ‘There was an increased sense of pride and identity in the community’
as a result of their CRE project(s). Economic benefits were also important,
with 100% of communities reporting ‘Increased local employment’ and
70% the creation of financial benefits for community members.

Trends in benefits from interviews and questionnaires. Despite the diversity

of benefits from CRE in different communities, in all cases each
community experienced at least one type of benefit, with interviewed and
surveyed communities on average reporting 5.6 and 5.2 different benefit
types arising from CRE. Social benefits were most common from CRE
projects (51% of benefits reported in interviews and selected in
questionnaires), followed by economic benefits (43% of benefits reported
across both methods). The most common benefits from both methods were:

• ‘Increased local employment’ in 14 out of 17 communities (82%);

• ‘Increased understanding of climate change and renewable energy’
(59%);
• ‘Increased sense of pride and identity in the community’ (53%);
• ‘The community received financial benefits’ (41%);
• ‘Strengthened social relationships’ (41%); and
• ‘Increased awareness of competency of residents’ (41%).

34
3.2 Keys to success and challenges

3.2.1 Keys to success

We asked communities to identify which actions, measures or conditions

they felt were key to the success of the development of CRE projects in
their community.

Literature review results. In our examination of literature, we found a range

of keys to success relating to communities’ experience with CRE that
helped frame our research. We grouped keys to success in social,
environmental, economic, technical and political categories for ease of
interpretation and comparison with findings from interviews and
questionnaires. The following expresses the range of important keys to
success found in CRE literature:

Social keys to success: Michalena and Angeon (2003) highlight the

importance of a community understanding the benefits from a proposed
renewable energy project, and Hoffman and High-Pippert state that a
project must be seen as contributing to “making the neighbourhood a better
place” (2009, 4). Both authors also cite wide involvement of different
stakeholders, dense and cohesive social networks, and high levels of casual
interaction in the community as key to the success of CRE. Installing a
CRE project sensitively within the landscape is also key to social
acceptance (Warren and McFadyen 2010).

Other social keys to success which emerge from literature include having a
strong individual or entrepreneur in the community to drive a project
(Walker 2008), linking to other CRE projects and networks (Hinshelwood
2001), and the project having a clear identity (Hinshelwood 2001) and
being a source of community pride (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009).
Trust amongst the community is also important and may ensure information
circulation (Michalena and Angeon 2003) and promotion of the project
through social networks (St Denis and Parker 2009). Hinshelwood (2001)
also highlights the importance of keeping up confidence after set-backs,
acting while there is motivation in the community, and seizing
opportunities as they arise as keys to success. Warren and McFadyen
(2010) concur that CRE development requires strong determination in order
to be successful.

35
A final social key to success in literature is a visioning and planning
process. Michalena and Angeon (2003) cite as key the presence of a long-
term vision to provide citizens with sufficient time for the adoption of new
ideas. Hinshelwood (2001) also stresses the importance of a community
assessing and analysing their goals and needs, maintaining a clear vision,
having project objectives, and making informed decisions and strategic
plans.

Political keys to success: One source of political keys to success came from
Michalena and Angeon’s 2003 examination of CRE case studies in Crete.
Within this context, political keys to success included that fact that
municipalities realized the benefits of CRE, and a favourable legislative
context and initiatives for promotion of renewable energy existed.
Information was also available on funding possibilities for the research and
installation of new renewable energy technologies. Hain (2005) also
supports the idea that favourable local and national policies help get
projects up and running in the UK, generally increase renewable energy
development, and make it easier for communities to connect with the grid
system.

Other political keys to success in literature include ownership of a CRE

project by the community (Warren and McFadyen 2010), knowledge
transfer from upper levels of organizations down to grassroots
organizations (St Denis and Parker 2009), and good understanding of, or
advice on, the local political environment (Hinshelwood 2001). Cosmi and
others (2003) also outline the importance of “suited price mechanisms
(taxes on pollutant fuels and subsidies), regulatory instruments (limits on
pollutant emissions, regulations on the energy supply side, voluntary
agreements with industry), and informative campaigns to guarantee a
correct use of resources and to limit damage to the environment” (Cosmi
and others, 2003, 456) through CRE projects.

Technical keys to success: In the technical area, access to expert advice and
support is key (Warren and McFadyen 2010; Walker 2008; and
Hinshelwood 2001), as well as the diffusion of current innovations (Warren
and McFadyen 2010).

Economic keys to success: Walker (2008) highlights cost-effectiveness as

critical to the success of CRE, shaping the viability of community
ownership, particularly where return to community investors is required.
Feed-in-tariffs are another economic key to success emerging from the

36
literature (Warren and McFadyen 2010). As next steps for the economic
success of CRE, “advances in the commercial viability and costs of small-
scale technologies that do not currently break even without subsidy will be
crucial" (Walker 2008, 4404).

Interview results. From the eight communities, 27 different keys to success

were identified. These keys to success were categorized into social,
political, economic, environmental and technical categories. The spread of
keys to success in the eight communities can be seen in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7. Keys to success for interviewed communities

37
Reported keys to success consisted of 11 different social keys to success
(with 31 instances recorded in interviews), seven political keys (25
instances), seven economic keys (20), three instances of the one
environmental key, and nine instances of the two technical keys to success.

The most commonly shared keys to success were:

• 'Having political support and leadership for CRE' in 6 out of 8

interviewed communities (75%);
• 'Assessing and utilizing existing infrastructure and selecting the best
fitting renewable energy technologies' (75%);
• 'Implementing education and awareness building initiatives',
(identified by 63% of interviewed communities);
• 'Having community support' (63%);
• 'Ensuring economic benefits for community including investors,
consumer and suppliers' (63%);
• 'Creating healthy business partnerships' (63%); and
• ‘Having a long term vision and plan’ (63%).

Questionnaire results: In our questionnaire we asked respondents to select

keys to success from a list of options, or to list other keys to success.
Thirteen communities provided a total of 18 different keys to success, of
those, eight falling into the social category (38 responses), four political (23
responses), two economic (nine responses), and five in the technical
category (25 responses), as shown in Table 3.8.

38
 Table 3.8. Keys to success for surveyed communities

The most commonly shared keys were:

• 'High level of understanding of the benefits in the community' in 11

out of 13 communities (85%);
• 'High level of community support' (85%);
• 'Good knowledge in the community of the planning and approval
processes' (85%);
• 'The technical expertise to set up the project was readily available'
(85%);
• 'High level of community participation' (69%); and
• ‘High level of co-operation between community, government and
industry’ (69%).

Trends in keys to success from interviews and questionnaires: Through

both research methods we were able to identify common keys to success.

39
The most commonly stated keys to success in CRE projects were in the
technical category, with all 21 communities reporting at least one technical
key to success, followed by social keys to success (90% of communities),
political keys (90%), economic (76%), and very few environmental keys to
success (reported by 14% of communities).

More specifically, the most common keys to success for CRE across all
researched communities were:

• ‘High level of community support’, experienced by 16 of the 21

communities (76%);
• ‘Benefits and a high level of understanding of the benefits in the
community’ (76%);
• ‘Encouraging community involvement’, ‘Involving as many
stakeholders as possible’, and a ‘High level of community
participation’ (76%);
• ‘Access to technical expertise’ (71%);
• ‘High level of co-operation and partnerships between community,
government and industry’ (67%); and
• ‘Good knowledge in the community of planning and approval
processes’ (52%).

3.2.2 Challenges experienced in CRE

Literature review results. From literature we identified many challenges

that CRE projects face. Some of these, particularly technical challenges
such as limits in network infrastructure, are not limited to CRE projects but
could be present in any renewable energy project. Challenges for CRE
uncovered in literature include:

Social challenges: Some social challenges relate to a lack of community

capacity to carry out plans or a lack of special skills needed to promote,
plan and develop all necessary aspects of a CRE project (Hinshelwood
2001). Similarly, some researchers note challenges in attracting outliers in
the community who may be lacking optimism for the project, and
difficulties associated with communities taking and maintaining control
(Hinshelwood 2001). These challenges may relate to general social protest
or local opposition due to community members wanting to maintain
cultural heritage or preserve the natural landscape, especially in regard to
the visual effects related to some renewable energy technologies (Warren

40
and McFadyen 2010; Michalena and Angeon 2003; Oikonomou and others
2009). Other social challenges include communities having “Insufficient
information and promotion to the community on the benefits of the project.
This often results from lack of market data on the financial and social
benefits for the local community” (Oikonomou and others 2009, 4881).

Political challenges: Political challenges related to regulation and policy,

include a lack of national policy for renewable energy installation planning,
“which results in problems in applications and increased bureaucracy”
(Oikonomou and others 2009, 4880) and can “act as barriers to ‘democratic
ownership’” (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2009, 2). Hinshelwood also
outlined that a slow approval process can sometimes lead to communities
compromising power to a funder or investor unless the community raises all
the funding among themselves (Hinshelwood 2001).

Economic challenges: Challenges included high investment costs and

associated barriers for communities, such as accessing networks, markets
and state support systems (Warren and McFadyen 2010, Michalena and
Angeon 2003) and discrimination by grid operators who own generation
capacity (Pepermans and others 2005). There were also references to the
challenges associated with current market conditions, such as renewable
energy “technologies (particularly solar) not competitive in current market
conditions” (Cosmi and others 2003, 456). Related to market challenges,
Oikonomou and others (2009) stated that the effect of unequal distribution
of subsidies for renewable energy creates market distortion and further
competition for renewable energy. It was also referenced that the current
return rate of investment costs, which need to be paid upfront in the short
term and get paid off in the longer term (Cosmi and others 2003) also
contribute to these market challenges, as well as there simply not being
enough financial advantages and incentives to support renewable energy
projects (Oikonomou and others 2009).

Technical challenges: These challenges were associated mainly with

limitations in technical infrastructure, balancing energy demand and supply
due to environmental variations, and lack of technical options for energy
storage, as well as challenges related to basic instabilities of current wind
technologies (Michalena and Angeon 2003; Oikonomou and others 2009).

Interview results. For details on the challenges in establishing CRE projects

experienced by communities that we interviewed, see Table 3.9. In

41
summary, there were a total of 43 reported challenges, with 100% of
responding communities identifying at least one economic challenge, 75%
of communities reporting at least one political and one technical challenge,
and 63% at least one social challenge.

The most commonly shared challenges were:

• 'Building social acceptance in the face of social protest and

opposition', reported by 50% of interviewed communities;
• 'Lack of infrastructure and limitation for distribution' (50%)
• 'Facing high upfront costs’ (38%);
• 'Having dependency on external investors' (38%); and
• 'Unfavourable local or national regulations and policies' (38%).

Table 3.9. Challenges faced by interviewed communities

42
Questionnaire results. The 14 communities who responded to the question
on challenges in the questionnaire were asked to rank their experience of
social, economic, political and technical challenges on a scale of one to
five, with one being a minor challenge and five being a very significant
challenge. These results are presented in Table 3.10. Questionnaire
respondents were asked to describe in detail the challenges they rated as
‘significant’ or ‘very significant’.

Table 3.10. Challenges faced by surveyed communities

All 14 communities experienced some type of economic challenge, with

64% of surveyed communities ranking economic challenges as ‘significant’
or ‘very significant’. Technical challenges were also experienced by 100%
of communities, but only 29% of communities ranked these challenges as
‘significant’ or ‘very significant’. Ninety three per cent of communities
experienced political challenges, with 46% of these ranking these as
‘significant or ‘very significant’. Seventy nine per cent of communities
experienced social challenges, with 45% of these identifying social
challenges as ‘significant’ or ‘very significant’.

43
Trends in challenges from interviews and questionnaires. In learning more
about challenges faced in CRE projects across both methods, it is difficult
to compare interviews and surveys, which utilized different approaches to
gather data. Despite questionnaire responses not being as detailed as the
challenges discussed extensively in interviews, we can see (from most
common to least common) that:

• Economic challenges face 95% of interviewed and surveyed

communities (21 out of 22, with Thisted included in both an
interview and questionnaire);
• Technical challenges face 91% of studied communities;
• Political challenges are experienced by 86%; and
• Social challenges are experienced in 73% of studied communities.

3.2.3 Methods of overcoming challenges

Our results from methods for overcoming challenges stem mainly from
questionnaires, as in interviews we did not differentiate clearly between
what an interviewee considered to be a key to success and what was a
method of overcoming a challenge. Therefore much of the interview data
presented under keys to success above should also be considered as
possible methods for overcoming challenges faced in CRE.

Interview results. In our interviews we did not ask for methods of

overcoming challenges in every case. However two interviews in Germany
revealed methods for overcoming a social and economic challenge:

Overcoming social challenges: To overcome resistance to connecting to the

new district heating scheme in their village using heat from biogas, the
Bioenergiedorf Reiffenhausen energy cooperative provided residents in
Reiffenhausen with evidence that the scheme was no more expensive per
kilowatt hour compared to the cost per litre of oil (Christoph 2010).

Overcoming economic challenges: The Forest Service and Municipality in

Turnow-Preilack in Germany faced very high upfront costs to clear an
abandoned military base of abandoned chemicals and ammunition. By
securing an advance 20-year rental payment from the solar development
company who partnered with them on their 700,000 module solar park, the
clean up costs were paid for (Fries 2010). Reiffenhausen overcame the 1.5
million Euro upfront project costs to lay a new district heating grid, which

44
they had to finance before the facility was running, by raising 450,000 Euro
from membership payments from cooperative members. They then made up
the remaining costs from EU and national funding and a 20-year loan with a
bank that has a lower interest rate for projects which reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (Rühling 2010).

Questionnaire results. Questionnaire participants were asked to identify the

ways they overcame challenges they rated as significant or very significant.
The range of methods of overcoming challenges experienced by surveyed
communities is listed by challenge type.

Overcoming regulatory challenges: Highlands’ found that the composition

of their CRE project team was important in helping to overcome regulatory
challenges. Having people who had worked in provincial and federal
government on their team gave them insight into the regulatory process.
They also had a history of past successes that gave them credibility when
dealing with regulator issues (Grigg 2010). Regulatory challenges were
overcome in Toronto after changes to regulations were made (Lipp 2010).
For the Pic River First Nations, regulatory challenges are ongoing but were
minimized due to government reform on the federal level. They are waiting
for similar reform on the provincial level (LeClair 2010).

Overcoming financial challenges: On the Margaret River project, an

application for funding was strengthened by including proof (in the form of
photographs) of dozens of initiatives already working in and around the
school (Bradstreet 2010). In Toronto, private funds helped to overcome
their financial challenges (Lipp 2010). The Pic River First Nation overcame
their financial challenges through education of government and financial
institutions. They found that they had to convince them that CRE was a
viable alternative to more mainstream projects. Pic River also received a
financial return on investment on their first project which they were able to
re-invest in future projects, allowing them to realize even further returns on
investment (LeClair 2010). Leonard’s Hill overcame their financial
challenges by ensuring that there was a sufficient depth and breadth of
shareholders to make sure the project raised enough capital. They also had
astute financial management that helped them minimize financial
challenges. The Hepburn Community Wind Park also received financial
assistance from regional government funding and the ability to secure a
loan (Wait 2010). The Municipality of Övertorneå found that by

45
undertaking their project inside the community they did not experience any
challenges in getting funding partners (Lundbäck 2010).

Overcoming social challenges: For the Pic River First Nations, social
challenges are ongoing, but are alleviated by transparent public
engagement. They ensure that project information is accessible to the public
through a web presence and community consultation is ensured through
public open houses and stakeholder meetings (LeClair 2010). Lolland
Municipality undertook strategic planning to ensure that they completed the
hard work up front so they could later explain the project more easily
(Christensen 2010).

Overcoming technical challenges: Lolland Municipality overcame their

technical challenges by working with NGOs, private companies in
Denmark, and some of the largest networks of universities (Christensen
2010).

Trends in methods for overcoming challenges from questionnaires and

interviews. Methods for overcoming challenges vary depending on the
specific challenge experienced in the community. However, information
sharing and active education, either between the project initiators and the
community, or between the project initiators and those who can provide
needed information, was a common method of overcoming economic,
social, technical and political challenges. Accessing diverse sources of
financial support was another method of overcoming financial challenges
shared by three communities.

3.3 Application of an SSD approach

Our results suggest that CRE projects offer important social, environmental
and economic benefits, and that by generating renewable energy and
involving local people, CRE is already helping communities achieve move
away from the current unsustainable energy systems. However, if CRE
projects are not undertaken using an SSD approach, unintended negative
impacts may still occur.

Kahn and others (2007, 528) state that very few studies have been done
which focus on energy and sustainability. They assert that:

46
 Even though many developers indeed claim environmental
impact assessment prior to implementing a technology, the fact
that a time span, shorter than a characteristic time of a natural
process, is used, the technology automatically violates
environmental integrity. Modern society’s vision of time is
extremely short-term.

In addition, environmental, social and economic impacts are often assessed

separately from each other, or conducted in a superficial way. In this
section, we identify how the elements of a comprehensive SSD approach
could be applied to CRE projects. The elements of an SSD approach are
laid out below, followed by a short explanation of the relevance of each to
CRE projects:

Appreciation of cause and effect (systems thinking). Those involved in CRE

projects should be mindful of how all of their actions and decisions impact
their community, society and the ecosphere, taking into account possible
delays between cause and effect, and impacts on future generations.

Upstream thinking (systems thinking). When thinking about cause and

effect, those involved in CRE projects should be mindful of how they can
change their actions 'upstream' in the planning and decision making phase,
in order to avoid negative effects 'downstream' once a project is underway.

Working backwards from a common vision of success (backcasting). Those

involved in CRE projects must decide together what they would like the
project to achieve (their vision of success), and the project should be
initiated and implemented based on this common vision. This vision should
include compliance with the Sustainability Principles and the three CRE
elements, and include input from the wider community so the vision can be
widely shared.

Assessing current performance against principles for sustainability. Those

involved in CRE projects should understand sustainability on a principle
level in order to work towards it, taking the Sustainability Principles into
account in all decisions.

Choosing steps that are moving in the right direction towards the vision.
All steps taken in CRE projects should be moving in the right direction
towards the vision of SCRE, as a process of continual improvement.

47
Choosing steps that are flexible platforms towards the vision. Although all
steps taken in CRE projects should be moving towards sustainability, they
may be steps that are not fully sustainable in themselves, as long as they do
not limit the ability of the project to continue moving towards the vision of
achieving SCRE.

Choosing steps that provide a sufficient return on investment to maintain

progress. All steps taken in CRE projects should provide a return on
investment that enables the CRE project to continue moving forward
towards SCRE. This return could be social, environmental, economic, etc.,
such as increased social trust and growth in relationships between
community members, improved ecological health or financial investment in
building a new community facility.

Demonstrating leadership. CRE projects initiators and managers should

demonstrate leadership. This could be on wider energy issues in the
community, or by sharing their example with other communities and CRE
projects worldwide.

Engaging others to create a greater societal shift towards sustainability.

CRE projects should engage as many community members as possible in
all stages of the process, in order to increase understanding of
sustainability, helping create a larger societal shift towards sustainability.

3.3.1 Integration of the SSD approach for CRE in

guidance for CRE projects

In this section, the elements of an SSD approach for CRE outlined above
are presented in a form that provides simple but comprehensive guidance
that could be implemented in a CRE project to ensure that it is moving
towards SCRE. This guidance also includes key findings of research
question one (features of CRE projects) and research question two (keys to
success and challenges). Each piece of guidance is explained, and brief
reference made to the source of the guidance, either from application of an
SSD approach, active research findings from both interviews and
questionnaires, or a specific example from a researched community. The
following three Guidelines apply to all Stages of implementing CRE
projects.

48
Guideline 1: Financial Resilience - Ensure return on investment, good
financial management and reduced financial risk. Many communities
struggle to generate the funds required to initiate CRE projects, with six
interviewed communities citing upfront costs and relying on external
investors as major challenges. Financial management can also make or
break a CRE project. In our research we heard two stories of community
organizations that went bankrupt or lost thousands of Euros because of
failure by contractors or changes in contract terms. To succeed it is
important to establish good financial management and a healthy return on
investment for the project in all Stages.

Guideline 2: Business Development - Strengthen partnerships,

organizational effectiveness and ensure transparency. CRE projects usually
require cooperation between different partners over many years. With joint
agreements and financial commitments between parties in our researched
communities often stretching for decades, strong partnerships and effective,
transparent business practices are critical. For Turnow-Preilack, a very
small German Municipality, it was important to have individual
responsibilities and profit share agreements written up in contracts between
themselves and their two project partners for their 20-year solar park. But
agreements are not enough. "You have to have open conversations. If you
have the ability to look into each other's eyes, that's worth a lot” (Fries
2010).

Guideline 3: Network and Partner - Connect with other CRE projects,

decision makers and experts to share ideas, resources and support and
explore opportunities for collaboration. Alone, Ærø is only 6,800 people
confined to a small island in Denmark. But by creating learning
relationships, a community can draw on what works for others in the
successful development of CRE. Ærø is part of a knowledge exchange with
Scottish and English islands that are undertaking CRE projects, as well as
working in cooperation with three other Danish islands on a joint energy
campaign and being part of the Energy Service Denmark network. This
creates lots of virtual colleagues who Ærø can exchange information with,
and sometimes creates funding for CRE projects on Ærø.

As well as the Guidelines, which apply to all Stages of a CRE project

moving towards SCRE, the following guidance can be given to
communities regarding the process of moving towards SCRE:

49
1. Vision - Develop a shared vision of Sustainable Community Renewable
Energy (SCRE). Developing a shared vision of SCRE based on compliance
with science-based Sustainability Principles was included as an important
stage in this tool based on the application of an SSD approach. Support for
visioning also came from five out of eight interviewed communities who
identified ‘Having a long-term vision and plan for CRE in their community’
as key to their success.

Visioning should include:

Community Involvement. Involve as many community members as possible

and help grow social connections. Community involvement was
incorporated into the vision of the tool based on it being cited by many
communities as a key to success for their development of CRE. T’Souke
First Nation emphasized that involving the whole community and having an
inclusive visioning and planning process was indispensible to the success of
their CRE project (Moore 2010).

Community Benefits. Ensure that benefits for the community are designed
into the project and are monitored. Literature review results showed that if
local people do not benefit from a project and the project does not meet
local needs, there will be much less acceptance of a proposed renewable
energy project. There is also more likelihood of opposition to a proposed
project, as the installation can be seen as an intrusion with no relationship
or benefits to the community. A ‘High level of the understanding of the
benefits in the community’ was also cited as a key to success in most
surveyed communities.

2. Assess - Conduct an analysis of current community reality. It is

important to understand where a project is situated currently in relation to
the community’s vision. Once the current reality is well understood,
communities can select actions that help them work towards their vision,
and develop according to their core purpose and goals. The Assess stage
was incorporated into the tool as part of the SSD approach, where current
reality is compared against a vision of success.

3. Brainstorm - List possible ideas for SCRE. The Brainstorm stage is

included as part of the SSD approach. We suggest that this stage involve as
many community members as possible due to keys to success found in
communities such as ‘Having ideas generated in the community related to

50
CRE’, ‘Encouraging community involvement’, ‘Utilizing and building local
skills’ and ‘Drawing on cultural identity, heritage, values and needs’.

4. Select and implement. We designed the Select and Implement stage as an

important part of the SSD approach and backcasting process. This includes
selecting renewable energy technology and resources for a CRE project that
move towards compliance with the Sustainability Principles. We
recommend that this stage be undertaken while working with technical
experts due to the importance of ‘Assessing and utilizing the best fitting
technology and selecting the best fitting RE technology’ as a key to success
amongst researched communities, as well as the potential negative impacts
identified for CRE.

5. Promote - Promote the successes of the project, strengthen community

self image and brand for the area. This stage incorporates many of the
benefits and keys to success identified by communities. Eighty five per cent
of communities identified having a ‘High level of understanding of the
benefits in the community’ in questionnaires. Thisted and Frederikshavn in
Denmark described ‘Promoting and strengthening successes of CRE to
build image, branding and pride in the community’ as a key to success.
Some identified benefits also justify promotion, such as Victoria, Canada
stating that in their process of promoting their successes, they experienced
the benefit of ‘Inspiring other sustainable development projects’.

6. Review - Review CRE project to ensure alignment with the SCRE vision.
As part of being strategic, it is important to review as a CRE project
develops and check to make sure it is still in alignment with the SCRE
vision. Straying away from progress towards a shared vision could lead to
challenges and a lack of understanding and involvement in the community.
Uncovering new technology, regulations and economic incentives through
review may also mean that the project can take further steps towards the
SCRE vision.

7. Reinvest - Incorporate reinvestment strategies into visioning and

planning and always encourage reinvestment into current and developing
CRE projects. In our findings we saw that reinvestment strategies played a
key part in the successful development of many CRE projects. Interviewees
in Ærø, Prenzlau, and Neustrelitz all identified ‘Having a reinvestment
strategy to support ongoing CRE projects and develop new CRE projects’
as key to their successful CRE development. Neustrelitz also reported

51
having ‘Money reinvested in community development’ as an important
benefit of CRE.

A full list of checklist questions was also developed to help a community

ensure they are following a strategic approach throughout their progress
towards SCRE. Examples of checklist questions include:

• Are you involving community members in the visioning process?

• Have you researched and explored what types of benefits for the
community could be achieved in an idea situation?
• Are you aware of ways in which your project is currently dependent
on fossil fuels?
• Are the measures you are selecting and implementing in line with
your SCRE vision?
• Are the measures you are selecting and implementing likely to
provide you with a return on investment?
• Is your reinvestment strategy flexible, so it can adjust to changes in
the market and consumer and community preferences?

52
4 Discussion

4.1 Key findings

This section discusses the key features and trends in CRE discovered for
Research Question One and Two. We then highlight the importance of
communities using an SSD approach in designing and implementing CRE
and introduce the SCRE Tool which can be used to guide projects towards
sustainability.

4.1.1 Research question 1: Features of CRE

Our research highlighted a diverse range of experience in the extent of

community involvement and the types of benefits received by communities,
showing that CRE projects can vary in their experience of the defined
features of CRE. This can be partly explained by varying political
regulations and policies (such as feed in tariffs in Germany), differing
cultural and social contexts (such as a history of local organizing or
community members with skills in renewable energy in Thisted and Ærø),
different geographical and environmental conditions (such as District
Heating systems in Europe but not in North America or Australia), and
other technical and economic factors that vary from community to
community and country to country.

This diversity of experience in community involvement and benefits to the

community shows the importance of allowing for diversity in which
element of ‘the community’ initiates, manages, and owns a CRE project,
and to what extent. A community will also utilize different community
engagement methods to increase understanding and contribution from the
wider community according to their context. It is also important to
encourage a community to design CRE to achieve the most relevant
benefits, as our interviews in particular show that communities are
designing CRE according to local needs.

We also found significant agreement in the literature research which

suggests that if local people are not involved and benefits are not shared
amongst community members, there is much less acceptance of renewable
energy projects.

53
Due to this strong support for the importance of community involvement
and intentionally designed benefits to the community from CRE, we
incorporated these two features in all Stages of the SCRE Tool.

4.1.2 Research question 2: Keys to success and

challenges

From our research with 21 CRE case studies, the most common keys to
success for CRE were community support, benefits to the community, good
business partnerships, political and technical knowledge, and community
involvement. These six elements therefore strongly informed the design of
our SCRE Tool, with community support, benefits and participation being
included in all Stages of the tool, and the other central keys to success being
reflected in standalone Guidelines or checklist questions.

The main challenges researched communities faced in implementing CRE

were economic, political and technical. To help avoid and overcome these
challenges, in our SCRE Tool we created ‘Financial resilience’ as a
guideline that applies to all Stages of the tool, and encouraged communities
to assess current regulations, promote their project to decision makers, and
form learning networks with other CRE communities to work together to
overcome political barriers. To avoid technical challenges, we provide
some guidance on selecting the most suitable renewable energy technology,
and encourage communities to draw on technical expertise in the ‘Assess’,
‘Select and implement’, and ‘Connect’ Stages.

4.1.3 Research question 3: Application of a Strategic

Sustainable Development approach

A community pursuing a CRE project may believe that they are taking
steps towards sustainability. However, without a clear definition of
sustainability and a strategic approach, there is no guarantee that the project
will be successful in achieving that goal. If the project is reducing the
community's contribution to violations of one of the sustainability
principles, but increasing their contribution to another, then the project is
not leading the community towards sustainability.

We want to help communities approach SCRE strategically. We decided

that the guidance for CRE projects that emerged from the synthesis of
results could best be presented to communities considering the development

54
of CRE projects and those already using CRE projects in the shape of a
tool. Despite the growing field of research on CRE, we found little research
in this field that pairs CRE with a Strategic Sustainable Development
approach that supports communities to generate energy that does not
negatively impact environmental, social and economic sustainability. The
SCRE Tool is therefore an important contribution to the CRE and
sustainability fields.

The tool includes:

• A full description of the visioning process;

• An explanation of the importance of the CRE components
(renewable energy, community benefits, community involvement);
• A description of the four Sustainability Principles and how they
relate to CRE; and
• Guidance from Results synthesis, in the form of three Guidelines
and seven project Stages with checklist questions.

The SCRE Tool was created by:

• Drawing on existing literature and knowledge of SSD;

• Applying an SSD approach to CRE, as detailed in Results;
• Incorporating keys to success from researched communities;
• Creating a list of ideas for how to implement each guideline, based
on our findings from researched communities;
• Creating a list of checklist questions to guide communities at each
stage, incorporating strategic elements from an SSD approach;
• Checking the negative impacts found in literature, interviews and
questionnaires and ensuring the tool includes guidance on how to
avoid them;
• Checking the tool using the data from our research on challenges
faced by communities, and testing whether the content would help
communities avoid these challenges; and
• Getting feedback on the draft tool from advisers and SSD experts.
This involved sending draft versions of the tool to those experienced
with SSD, and incorporating feedback.

The full SCRE Tool text can be viewed in Appendix D. Each stage and
guideline is important for communities in creating a comprehensive CRE
project in a strategic way, and they should be used comprehensively to

55
progress towards SCRE. We refer to the SCRE Tool as a strategic process
tool, as it ensures that actions in a community are in line with strategic
principles that will increase the likelihood of a community achieving
SCRE.

We have designed the SCRE Tool to include a step by step process with 7
Stages. By progressing through the 7 Stages, communities are guided
through visioning, assessment, brainstorming, selection and
implementation, promotion, review and reinvestment. This leaves room for
each individual community to determine its own appropriate actions to
work towards SCRE. It is designed to be applicable for a community which
is initiating a new CRE project or which already has a CRE project and
wishes to move it towards sustainability. Each stage of the tool is depicted
in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1. SCRE Tool Stages and Guidelines

56
4.2 Strengths and limitations

4.2.1 Research strengths

This thesis explores literature on CRE, but most importantly draws on the
actual experience of communities with CRE across eight countries in the
developed world. This represents firsthand experience of what works, and
showcases the challenges and methods of overcoming challenges developed
by diverse communities in their local context.

It was very beneficial for our research to be able to visit communities in

Sweden, Denmark and Germany in person and in some cases visit the sites
where the energy was being generated. This expanded our understanding of
the technological aspects of CRE and the local conditions that impact each
project. This enabled us to learn from real CRE experience and to gain a
richer understanding of the success factors for CRE that shaped our design
of the SCRE Tool.

4.2.2 Research limitations

Because of our limited sample size and regional spread, we cannot claim to
have explored the full breadth of the defined features of CRE
internationally. In addition, we only spoke with one to four people in each
community, and therefore may not have had a well rounded picture of the
way in which CRE is implemented in each community. Because of small
sample sizes in each community, we are likely to have faced individual
biases in our interviewees and survey respondents, possible language
barriers, and misinterpretation of information.

Results for keys to success, benefits and challenges from questionnaires

may have been influenced by providing listed options in our wording in the
survey template as well as text boxes for respondents to list their own
responses. This made comparison between the same feature in
questionnaires and interviews difficult in some cases, as terminology for
keys to success, challenges and benefits from interviews were a reflection
of interviewee responses, rather than the same listed options in
questionnaires.

Despite spanning seven countries in the developed world, our research had
a geographic bias towards Scandinavian, German and Canadian CRE

57
projects, with 75% of our studied CRE cases coming from four countries.
This occurred because we visited Sweden, Denmark and Germany for
interviews, and did not receive responses from as many questionnaire
respondents as we expected in the US, other parts of Europe and New
Zealand.

In terms of data, 11 interviews in eight different communities gave us very

rich data on CRE project experience. However, inherent in analyzing
qualitative interview conversations for quantitative results, it was
challenging to represent the breadth of experience fully in our Results.

Because we sought out communities with community benefits and

community involvement since these are key components of CRE, this may
have influenced the fact that these components were also reported by many
communities as key to their CRE project success. However, we included
case studies which had different levels of involvement and different extent
of experienced benefits.

We expected to find more environmental benefits reported in researched

communities based on the greenhouse gas reduction benefits we uncovered
in our literature review and knowledge of sustainability challenge posed by
current non-renewable energy production. We also uncovered less negative
impacts than we expected based on our understanding of possible negative
sustainability impacts of renewable energy technologies. Our research
could perhaps have included critical perspectives on CRE projects within
the communities in addition to initiators and managers of CRE projects,
who are more likely to promote their projects.

4.2.3 Strengths of the SCRE Tool

We believe that the SCRE Tool offers a valuable aid to communities in

moving towards sustainable energy generation. Some of the strengths of the
Tool include that it is illustrated with practical examples and suggestions
for action. Sustainability is also addressed in practical questions for
communities, listed as simple checklists, rather than just presented as
theoretical principles without energy-specific examples.

58
4.2.4 Potential limitations of the SCRE Tool

The SCRE Tool addresses communities on a general level in that it applies

the science-based Sustainability Principles and strategic guidelines for CRE
in seven Stages. However it is difficult to suit the needs of the communities
with a general tool. For example, although it provides guidance for how to
make a selection, the tool does not provide the level of technical detail to
compare different renewable energy technologies, and therefore should be
used in conjunction with more in depth technical support.

It is also challenging to simplify the tool for use and at the same time reflect
the scientific complexity of the sustainability challenge and how to comply
with the Sustainability Principles in practice.

4.3 Recommendations for future research

This research has explored new territory in both CRE and the application of
a Strategic Sustainable Development approach to CRE projects. However,
given the importance of sustainable renewable energy to solving the global
sustainability challenge, and the limitations of this research, there is further
valuable research that we believe needs to occur.

The SCRE Tool has the potential to be a valuable process guide for
planning and decision-making in communities wanting to move towards
sustainable energy. To be most effective, the tool could be further
developed, as well as being supported by further research in the CRE field.
Areas that would contribute to further development of SCRE include:

Conduct user testing of the SCRE Tool, sample from a wider range of CRE
case studies and strengthen learning networks between communities. By
extending research with a wider number of case studies and testing the tool
with CRE practitioners, it could be improved and expanded to be most
useful in supporting progress towards SCRE.

Expand the rationale for an SCRE approach, including tested benefits.

Since the SCRE Tool will be used in conjunction with many existing
approaches that do not incorporate comprehensive sustainability criteria
(such as financial feasibility assessments, Environmental Impact
Assessments, or engineering testing), an extensive and well-researched

59
explanation of the rationale for each element of the SCRE Tool would
assist communities in explaining SCRE to partners they work with.

Research and include further tools to quantify impacts from CRE options to
support decision-making. To assess and compare sustainability impacts
from renewable energy technologies or different project options,
communities need to use the SCRE Tool as a planning and development
tool in conjunction with quantitative frameworks such as the Guide for
Sustainable Energy Decisions (Jonasson and others 2008), Sustainable
Lifecycle Assessment (Ny and others 2006), and other tools.

Explore the potential for inclusion in the Real Change Programme. The
Real Change programme, a collaborative programme between Lund
University, Blekinge Institute of Technology, and The Natural Step,
supports government, communities and businesses as they implement
strategic sustainability solutions. One of the focus areas of this programme
is community development. The SCRE Tool and CRE research could be
developed into a project under the Real Change programme, similar to the
project on Sustainable Traffic Solutions in Sweden.

Test how SCRE Guidelines can be embedded in local energy planning and
policy at the Municipal level. Given their important role in local energy
planning and community development, use of the SCRE Tool by
municipalities holds significant potential for CRE development that can be
explored through case studies.

Analyse SCRE specific to developing countries, providing information to

communities who are implementing electricity generation for the first time.
As the Alliance of Research Universities' scientific congress on climate
change at Copenhagen University recommended in 2009, "In some cases,
renewable technologies may actually be more immediately applicable to
developing country requirements than more traditional fossil fuel based
energy systems because they can work in remote areas, on smaller scales
and may need less maintenance and local technical capacity (University of
Copenhagen 2009, 26). Much of this research may also be applicable to
communities in remote locations in the developed world.

60
5 Conclusion

In the face of the sustainability challenge and the dominance of centralized

non-renewable energy, sustainable energy solutions are critical. In this
thesis we have presented CRE as an important part of the global energy
solution, and shared the detailed experience of 21 CRE case studies in
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Canada, the United States and
Australia, as well as in wider literature. This has showcased the benefits
arising from local renewable energy generation for communities, how
community members are involved in CRE projects, and what elements
project managers believe are key to the success of CRE.

The results of this thesis also explored a wide range of challenges to

overcome, particularly in the economic, political and technical areas, and a
number of negative impacts that have arisen for communities through CRE
projects. Using an SSD approach, this thesis also presented some of the
ways in which CRE could still create negative impacts if planned without
using a whole-systems and principles-based methodology.

To transition to a sustainable energy future, comprehensive as well as

accessible planning tools are necessary to support project initiators and
managers of CRE projects. As one interview participant described, “There
is no proper guideline. You have to invent the wheel again on your own”
(Rühling 2010). The SCRE Tool fills this gap, providing a staged planning
guide to support communities in moving towards an energy future that not
only generates renewable energy and involves and benefits local people, but
that reduces any unintended negative impacts.

If the SCRE Tool is able to inspire and guide communities in moving closer
towards sustainable energy generation for their local community and the
wider world, then it will be considered a success. Hopefully, this is one of
many contributions supporting communities in powering themselves
towards a sustainable energy future, experiencing many benefits for their
community along the way.

61
References

Cited References

Alanne, Kari, and Arto Saari. 2006. Distributed energy generation and
sustainable development. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 10:
539-558.

Almeida, Pedro de, and Pedro D Silva. The Peak of Oil Production –
Timing and Market Recognition. Energy Policy 37: 1267–1276.

Anonymous Canada. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. BC, Canada. March

25.

Anonymous Austria. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Burgenland, Austria.

March 19.

Anonymous Prenzlau 1. 2010. Interview by authors. Prenzlau, Germany.

March 22.

Anonymous Prenzlau 2. 2010. Interview by authors. Prenzlau, Germany.

March 22.

Bodansky, David. 2006. The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal. Forum on

Physics and Society
of The American Physical Society 35 No. 1. Available
from http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2006/january/article1.html
(accessed 2 May 2010).

Bolt-Jørgensen, Bertel. 2010. Interview by authors. Hurup, Denmark.

March 15.

Bradstreet, Paul. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Margaret River, Western

Australia, Australia. April 12.

Broman, Göran, John Holmberg, and Karl-Henrik Robèrt. 2000. Simplicity

without Reduction: Thinking Upstream Towards the Sustainable Society.
Interfaces: International Journal of the Institute for Operations Research
and the Management Sciences 30, no. 3.

Cai, Y.P., G.H. Huang, Q. Tan, and Z.F. Yang. 2009. Planning of

62
community-scale renewable energy management systems in a mixed
stochastic and fuzzy environment. Renewable Energy 34: 1833–1847.

Carley, Sanya. 2009. Distributed generation: An empirical analysis of

primary motivators. Energy Policy 37: 1648-1659.

Christensen, Leo. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Sealand, Denmark.

March 21.

Cosmi,C., M. Macchiatob, L. Mangiamelec, G. Marmoc, F. Pietrapertosaa,

and M. Salviaa. 2003. Environmental and economic effects of renewable
energy sources use on a local case study. Energy Policy: 443–457.

Christoph, Klaus. 2010. Interview by authors. Reiffenhausen, Germany.

March 29.

Degn, Lise. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Thisted, Denmark. April 7.

Dell, R.M., and D.A.J. Rand. 2001. Energy storage: a key technology for
global energy sustainability. Journal of Power Sources 100: 2-17.

del Rı´o, Pablo, and Mercedes Burguillo. 2009. An empirical analysis of the
impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 1314–1325.

Dincer, Ibrahim, and Marc Rosen. 1999. Energy, environment and

sustainable development. Applied Energy 64: 427-40.

Dincer, Ibrahim. 2000. Renewable energy and sustainable development: a

crucial review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 4: 157-75.

Dukes, Jeffrey S. 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of

Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31–44.

Elliot, Dave. 2000. Renewable energy and sustainable futures. Futures 32:
261-74.

Energy Information Administration. 1994. Carbon Dioxide Emission

Factors for Coal. Available from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html#N_1_
(accessed 2 May 2010).

63
European Communities. 2006. The Energy Community Creating the
Power and Confidence to Rebuild. Brussels: European Communities.

European Parliament. 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use
of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Available from
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0028:EN:N
OT (accessed 27 April 2010).

Frey, Gary W., and Deborah W. Linke. 2002. Hydropower as a renewable

and sustainable energy resource meeting global energy challenges in a
reasonable way. Energy Policy 30: 1261-1265.

Fries, Helmut. 2010. Interview by authors. Turnow-Preilack, Germany.

March 26.

Grigg, Neville. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Victoria, BC, Canada.

March 14.

Haase, Herr. 2010. Interview by authors. Neustrelitz, Germany. March 23.

Hain, J.J., G.W. Ault, S.J Galloway, A. Cruden, and J.R. McDonald. 2005.
Additional renewable energy growth through small-scale community
orientated energy policies. Institute for Energy and Environment,
University of Strathclyde. Energy Policy 33: 1199–1212

Harper, Gavin D. J. 2009. The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy: Energy

Literacy: understanding and communicating energy issues. Brighton:
University of Brighton.

Heinemann, Jess. 2010. Interview by authors. Ærø, Denmark. March 18.

Heins,Taylor. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Michigan, USA. April 5.

Hinshelwood, Emily. 2001. Power to the People: Community-led wind

energy – obstacles and opportunities in a South Wales valley. Community
Development Journal 36: 99–110.

64
Hoffman, Steven M. and Angela High-Pippert. 2009. From private lives to
collective action: Recruitment and participation incentives for a community
energy program. Energy Policy In Press, Corrected Proof. Available from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list
&_ArticleListID=1193823099&_sort=r&view=c&_acct=C000034638&_ve
rsion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=644585&md5=5744b2ce36a0a459dfe9e
7ae86678cbf (accessed 4 February 2010).

Höhne, Birgit. 2010. Interview by authors. Neustrelitz, Germany. March

23.

Holmberg, John, and Karl-Henrik Robèrt. 2000. Backcasting from non-

overlapping sustainability principles: a framework for strategic planning.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 7: 1-
18.

Höök, Mikael, and Kjell Aleklett. 2010. Trends in U.S. Recoverable Coal
Supply Estimates and Future Production Outlooks. Paper presented at
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference 2009. Available from:
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PCC_Article.pdf (accessed 20 May
2010)

Hubbert, M.K. 1982. Techniques of Prediction as Applied to Production of

Oil and Gas. US Department of Commerce, NBS Special Publication 631.

Hvelplund, Frede. 2006. Renewable energy and the need for local energy
markets. Energy 31: 2293–2302.

International Energy Agency. 1998. World Energy Outlook 1998 Update.

Available from
http://iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1244 (accessed 9
April 2010).

International Energy Agency. 2002. World Energy Outlook 2002: Energy

and Poverty Chapter. Available from
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2002/energy_poverty.pdf (accessed
2 March 2010).

International Energy Agency. 2005. Energy Statistics Manual. Available

from http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1461
(accessed 20 May 2010)

65
International Energy Agency. 2008. World Energy Outlook 2008. Available
from http://www.iea.org/weo/2008.asp (accessed 28 April 2010).

International Energy Agency. 2009a. World Energy Outlook 2009: How

the energy sector can deliver on a climate agreement in Copenhagen.
Available from
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerp
t.pdf (accessed 9 April 2010).

International Energy Agency. 2009b. World Energy Outlook 2009

Factsheet. Available from
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/fact_sheets_WEO_200
9.pdf (accessed 10 April 2010)

International Energy Agency. 2010. Worldwide Energy Production.

http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29
(accessed 10 April 2010).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate change

2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability—Summary for policymakers.
Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Secretariat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007b. Climate

Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2009. Speech by the IPCC

Chairman Mr R.K. Pachauri at the Welcoming Ceremony of the
Conference of the Parties (COP), Fifteen session and Conference of the
Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(COP/MOP), Fifth session, Copenhagen, Denmark, seven December 2009.
Available from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/cop%2015/RKP-
welc-cer-cop15.pdf (accessed 2 May 2010).

Jennings, Stephanie, and John Healey. 2001. Appropriate renewable hybrid

power systems for the remote aboriginal communities. Renewable Energy
22: 327-333.

66
Jobert, Arthur J., Pia Laborgne, and Solveig Mimler. 2007. Local
acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and
German case studies. Energy Policy 35, 5: 2751-2760.

Jonasson, Anna, Ben Kneppers and Brendan Moore. 2008. Principles-

Based Comparison Framework for Renewable Electricity Options. Master's
thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Kau, Mikael. 2010. Interview by authors. Frederikshavn, Denmark. March

16.

Khan, M. Ibrahim, Salem Y. Lakhal and M Rafiqul Islam. 2007. Analyzing

Sustainability of Community-Based Energy Development Technologies.
Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Computers and
Industrial Engineering, October 20-23. Ed. M.H. Elwany, and A.B.
Eltawil. Alexandria: Egypt.

Kruse, Jane. 2010. Interview by authors. Hurup, Denmark. March 15.

Kutzner, Simon. 2010. Interview by authors. Prenzlau, Germany. March 22.

LeBlanc, Greg. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. New Brunswick, Canada.

March 15.

LeClair, Byron. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Ontario, Canada. March

20.

Leder, Frederic, and Judith N. Shapiro. 2008. This Time it’s Different. An
Inevitable Decline in World Petroleum Production will Keep Oil Product
Prices High, Causing Military Conflicts and Shifting Wealth and Power
from Democracies to Authoritarian Regimes. Energy Policy 36: 2850–
2852.

Lipp, Judith. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Ontario, Canada. March 25.

Lundbäck, Per. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Övertorneå, Sweden.

March 23.

Madlener, Reinhard. 2007. Innovation diffusion, public policy, and local

initiative: The case of wood-fuelled district heating systems in Austria.
Energy Policy 35: 1992–2008.

67
Maegaard, Preben. 2010. Interview by authors. Hurup, Denmark. March 15.

Martindale, Lauren. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Colorado, USA. April

8.

Max-Neef, Manfred, Antonio Elizalde, and Martín Hopenhayn. 1989.

Human Scale Development: An Option for the Future. Development
Dialogue: A Journal of International Development Cooperation 1: 7-80.

Max-Neef, Manfred. 1991. Human Scale Development: Conception,

Application and Further Reflections. New York: The Apex Press.

Michalena, Evanthie, and Vale´ rie Angeon. 2003. Local challenges in the
promotion of renewable energy sources: The case of Crete. Energy Policy
3: 2018–2026.
Middlemiss, Lucie and Bradley D. Parrish. 2009. Building capacity for
low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy,
In Press, Corrected Proof. Available from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-
4X5BP32-
1&_user=644585&_coverDate=09%2F05%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high
&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=13396101
18&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000034638&_version=1&_urlV
ersion=0&_userid=644585&md5=5e0d1abdea097ac06d6dc4be8d33d854
(accessed 4 February 2010).

Moore, Andrew. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. British Columbia,

Canada. March 14.

Nikiforuk, Andrew. 2008. Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a
Continent. Vancouver: D&M Publishers Inc.

Nilsson, Sarah. 2010. Interview by authors. Växjö, Sweden. March 9.

Ny, H., J. P. MacDonald, G. Broman, R. Yamamoto, and K.-H. Robèrt.

2006. Sustainability constraints as system boundaries: an approach
to making life-cycle management strategic. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 10:1.

68
Nuclear Energy Institute. 2009. Policy Brief: Uranium Fuel Supply
Adequate to Meet Present and Future Nuclear Energy Demand. Available
from
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/policybriefs/uran
iumfuelsupplyadequate (accessed April 27, 2010).

Oiknomou, Emmanouil K., Vassilios Kilias, Aggelos Goumas,

Alexandrous Rigopoulos, Eirini Karakatsani, Markos Damasiotis, Dimitrios
Papastefanakis, and Natassa Marini. 2009. Renewable energy sources
(RES) projects and their barriers on a regional scale: The case study of
wind parks in the Dodecanese islands, Greece. Energy Policy 37: 4874–
4883.

Omer, Abdeen Mustafa. 2009. Energy Use and Environmental Impacts: A

General Review. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 1: 525-536.

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. 2009. OPEC Annual

Report 2008. Available from
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publi
cations/AR2008.pdf (accessed 9 April 2010).

Pepermans, G., J. Driesen, D. Haeseldonckx, R. Belmans, and W.

D’haeseleer. 2005. Distributed Generation: Definition, Benefits and Issues.
Energy Policy 33: 787-798.

Rogers, J.C., E.A. Simmons, I. Convery, and A. Weatherall. 2008. Public

perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy
projects. Energy Policy 36, 11: 4217-4226.

Roick, Wolfgang. 2010. Interview by authors. Turnow-Preilack, Germany.

March 26.

Rühling, Wilfried. 2010. Interview by authors. Reiffenhausen, Germany.

March 29.

Schmidt, Rune. 2010. Interview by authors. Ærø, Denmark. March 18.

Schweizer-Ries, Petra. 2008. Energy sustainable communities:

Environmental psychological investigations. Energy Policy 36, 11: 4126-
4135.

69
St Denis, Genevieve, and Paul Parker. 2009. Community energy planning
in Canada: The role of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 13: 2088-2095.

Stutzke, Herr. 2010. Interview by authors. Prenzlau, Germany. March 22.

The Natural Step. 2010. The Funnel. Available from

http://www.naturalstep.org/sv/the-funnel (accessed 3 May 2010).

United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring

Centre. 2010a. Glossary of Biodiversity Terms. Available
from http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/reception/glossaryA-E.htm (accessed 14
February 2010).

United Nations Environment Program. 2010b. United Nations Environment

Program Year Book 2010. Available from
http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2010/PDF/UNEP_Year_Book_full_highRE
S.pdf (accessed 8 May 2010).

United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and

Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. 2009. World Population
Prospects: The 2008 Revision Population Database. Available from
http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp (accessed 2 May 2010).

University of Copenhagen. 2009. Synthesis Report from Climate Change:

Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen.

Van Hoesen, John, and Steven Letendre. 2010. Evaluating potential

renewable energy resources in Poultney, Vermont: A GIS-based approach
to supporting rural community energy planning. Renewable Energy 35, 9:
2114-2122.

Wait, David. 2010. Questionnaire by authors. Victoria, Australia. March

19.

Walker, Gordon. 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-
owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36, 12: 4401-
4405.

70
Walker, G., and N. Cass. 2007. Carbon reduction, ‘the public’, and
renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. Area 39,
4: 458–469.

Walker, Gordon, and Patrick Devine-Wright. 2008. Community renewable

energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 36, 2: 497-500.

Walker, Gordon, Sue Hunter, Patrick Devine-Wright, Bob Evans and Helen
Fay. 20007. Harnessing Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating
Community-Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy in the UK.
Global Environmental Politics 7: 2

Warren, Charles R. and Malcolm McFadyen. 2010. Does community

ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-
west Scotland. Land Use Policy 27: 204–213.

Additional References

Ackermann, Thomas, Goran Andersson, and Lennart Soder. 2001.

Distributed generation: a definition. Electric Power Systems Research 57:
195-204.

Berg, Bruce L. 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.
6th edition. Ed. Jeff Larson. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Connell, Tamara, Melanie Dubin, and Magdalena Szpala. 2006. Carbon

Neutrality as Leverage in Transitioning a Financial Organisation Towards
Sustainability. Master's thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology.

Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Green Paper:

A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy.
Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

European Commission. 2001. Environment 2010: Our Future, Our

Choice. 6th EU Environmental Action Programme. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.

European Environment Agency. 2006. Energy and environment in

the European Union: Tracking progress towards integration. Copenhagen:
European Environment Agency.

71
Hoffman, Steven M, and Angela High-Pippert. 2005. Community Energy:
A Social Architecture for a Renewable Energy Future. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society 25: 385-401.

International Energy Agency. 2005. Energy Statistics Manual. Available

from http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1461
(accessed 12 February 2010).

Intelligent Energy Europe. 2007. Intelligent Energy Europe. Available from

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/index_en.html (accessed 20 March
2010).

McMillan, David W. and David M. Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A

definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14(1): 6-23.
Available from http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1nine 87-
03834-001 (accessed 12 February 2010).

Mirata, Murat, Helen Nilsson, and Jaakko Kuisma. 2005. Production

systems aligned with distributed economies: Examples from energy and
biomass sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 981-991.

Murphy, Joseph. 2006. Sustainability: Understanding People, Technology

and Governance. In Governing Technology for Sustainability. Ed. Joseph
Murphy. London: Earthscan.

Robèrt, K.H., B. Schmidt-Bleek, J. Aloisi de Larderel. G. Basile, J.L.

Jansen, R. Kuehr, Thomas P. Price, M. Suzuki, P. Hawken and M.
Wackernagel. 2002. Strategic sustainable development: selection, design
and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 197-214.

Sims, Ralph E. H., Rognerc Hans-Holger, and Ken Gregory. 2003. Carbon
emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and
renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy Policy 31:
1315-26.

UCCP and California University. 2009. Non-renewable energy sources.

Connexions September 2009. Available
from http://cnx.org/content/m16730/1.2/ (accessed 13 February 2010).

72
Appendices

Appendix A: Results

Regional spread of interviewed and surveyed communities

73
Renewable energy types in interviewed and surveyed communities

74
Appendix B: Interview and questionnaire questions

Interview questions

Introduction to the research

1. Overview of CRE in the community

1.1 Could you please provide us with a general summary of renewable
energy projects in your community that are producing electricity and
heating?
1.2 How have you been involved with these projects?

2 Technical
2.1. Which type/s of renewable energy technology have been used in the
community to generate electricity and heat?
2.2. What is the generation capacity for each type of renewable energy
identified?
2.3. What is the total amount of energy generated per year (in kilowatt or
megawatt hours)?
2.4. How is the energy distributed?
2.5. What is the estimated number of buildings supplied by the energy?
2.6. What is the % of total energy demand this project supplies to
consumers?
2.7. What are the costs and return on investments for the project?
Specifically:
a) What did it cost to establish the project to the point of producing
renewable energy?
b) What are the annual running costs for the project?
c) How long did/is it estimated to take for the project to achieve a return on
investment?

3. Initiation
3.1 Who were the main initiators of the project?
3.2 What other stakeholders were involved in the initiation of the project?

4. Community Involvement
4.1 How did you work with other organizations/community groups in
establishing the project?
4.2 What level of community involvement is there in the project?
4.3 What is the general attitude of the community towards the project?

75
5. Funding and Other Support
5.1 How was the project originally funded?

6. Ownership
6.1 What is the ownership model for the project/s?

7. Challenges (past, current, future)

7.1 What challenges did you come across in the establishment of the project
(financial, regulatory, social, technical)?
7.2 How were these challenges overcome?
7.3 What do you see as being ongoing challenges to increased renewable
energy development in the region, and to community members being
involved?

8. Motivators/Goals
8.1 What were the goals and motivation behind the project/s?

9. Benefits/Impacts
9.1 What economic benefits were created for the community from the
project/s?
9.2 What political and socio-cultural benefits were there to the community
from the project?
9.3 Were there any negative social and environmental impacts on the
community that resulted from the project?

10. Keys to Success

10.1 What do you think were the "keys to success" for the project/s?

11. Overall Trends in RE

11.1 What do you think would be needed to encourage more renewable
energy development in the region?
11.2 What do you see as the general trend in renewable energy? Are there
any further renewable energy projects planned in the community?

12. Follow Up
12.1 Are there any written case studies or reports for us to refer to for more
information?
12.2 Is there someone with technical/detailed knowledge of the project we
could ask to complete a questionnaire to learn more (if relevant)?

76
12.3 Are there any other renewable energy projects being led by
community groups or industry in the area that we should know about?

13. Privacy
13.1 How they would prefer your responses to be referred to in the thesis
and publication for communities? (used anonymously, identified by
community/organization name, or identified by name and
community/organization name)

Thanks

Questionnaire questions

Privacy options
How would you prefer that your responses be used in the Masters thesis and
publication for communities?
• I would prefer that my responses be used anonymously in the thesis
and publication
• My community/organisation may be identified by name in the thesis
and publication
• My community/organisation and I may be identified by name in the
thesis and publication.

Project location and your role

What is the name of the Community Renewable Energy project with which
you are involved?
Where is the Community Renewable Energy project located?
Name of Village/Town/City
Region (province, county, district, etc.)
Country

Which of the following options best describes the location of the

community?
• Island Community (small island with low population density)
• Remote Community/Rural (isolated area with low population
density)
• Village (a small group of houses in a country area)
• Town (a few hundred to several thousand inhabitants)
• City (urban settlement with a large population)

77
 • Other (please specify)

Which of the choices below best describes your role in the Community
Renewable Energy project?
• Community member involved with project
• Municipal government official involved with project
• Regional government official involved with project
• National government official involved with project
• Employee in renewable energy technology field involved with
project
• Academic researcher involved with the project
• Employee of utility company involved with project
• Other (please specify)

Please provide us with the following details about yourself and your role.
Your name (first and last):
The organization with which you are affiliated:
Your role/position with that organization:

Technical information
Which type/s of renewable energy technology is/will be used in the project?
Please check all that apply:
• Solar water heating
• Solar electricity
• Wind electricity
• Ground source heat pumps
• Air source heat pumps
• Hydroelectricity
• Biomass electricity
• Biogas electricity
• Combined Heat and Power
• Other (please specify type)

For each type of renewable energy technology being used in this project,
please indicate generation capacity, if known. Please specify if this is in
kilowatts or megawatts.
For each type of renewable energy technology being used in this project,
please indicate amount of energy generated per year. Please specify if this
is in kilowatt hours or megawatt hours.
Energy

78
Which of the following best describes the intended outcome of the project
in terms of the distribution of the energy generated? (Please check all that
apply):
• To supply energy to a single municipal/community building (school,
community hall, etc.)
• To supply energy to a single residential building (apartment
building, house, etc.)
• To supply energy to a group of municipal/community buildings
• To supply energy to a residential neighbourhood or group of
households
• To supply energy to a business or an industrial park
• To supply energy to the entire community (town, village, etc)
• To supply energy back to the grid
• Don't Know
• Other(s) (please specify)

Based on your answers above, please indicate the number of buildings

supplied by this energy, if known.

What percentage of total energy demand does this project supply to local
consumers (residential homes, community building etc)?
Development
At what stage of development is your project? (Please check all that apply):
• Community Group Formation
• Project Scoping (identifying the work that is needed)
• Community Consultation
• Research/Testing Technology
• Resource and Feasibility Assessment
• Application/Legal Document Preparation
• Environmental Assessment
• Construction
• Completed
• In Operation
• Don't Know
• Other(s) (please specify)

What was the length of the project from initiation to completion? If the
project is not yet completed, please indicate the anticipated length, if
known.

79
Initiation
Who were the initiators of this project? Please check all that apply:
• Community Members (either individually or as a group)
• Non-Government Organization(s)
• Municipal Government
• Regional Government
• National Government
• Public Energy Company/Utility
• Private Energy Company
• Don't Know
• Other(s) (please specify)

Ownership and financial information

What percent of this renewable energy project is community owned, if any?
What is the ownership model for the renewable energy project? Please
check all that apply:
• 100% community owned
• Co-ownership (*please specify owners in comment field below)
• Ownership by Energy Cooperative
• Ownership by Charitable Organization
• Ownership by Individual Shareholders
• Shares owned by Community Organization
• Ownership by Government (National, Regional or Municipal)
• Privately owned (*please specify owner(s) in comment field below)
• Don't Know
*Please specify owners or co-owners:

What are the costs and return on investments for the project? Please provide
general costs (indicate currency in brackets) or leave blank if not known.
Please provide estimated costs and return on investments if the project is
not yet completed.
What did it cost to establish the project to the point of producing renewable
energy?
What are the annual running costs for the project?
What is the estimated time for the project to achieve a return on
investments?

Where did the financial support for this project come from? For each
organization listed below, please indicate their financial contribution, if
any:

80
 • International Organization (e.g. EU, UN)
• Municipal Government
• Regional Government
• National Government
• Non-Governmental Organizations
• Private investment
• Fundraising by Community Members
• Bank loan

Did you receive any non-financial support (technical assistance, etc.) for
this project? Please specify the type and source of support.

Goals/success of the project

What were the goals of the renewable energy project? Please check all that
apply:
• To increase the energy independence of the community
• To strengthen relationships in the community
• To engage community members in the production of energy
• To reduce energy costs for the community
• To generate income/economic growth for the community
• To create jobs in the community
• To increase awareness of renewable energy options
• To reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• To address other environmental concerns
• Don't Know
• Other(s) (please identify other goals not mentioned above)

In general, how would you rate the success of the project in achieving the
goals you identified above?
• Very Unsuccessful
• Unsuccessful
• Neutral
• Successful
• Very successful
• Don’t know

Were any of the following factors key to the success of the renewable
energy project? Please choose the option which best describes the factor's
effect on the project:
• There was a high level of community participation

81
 • There was a high level of understanding of the benefits in the
community
• There was a high level of community support
• There was a high level of co-operation between community,
government and industry
• There was access to funding
• The technical expertise to set up the project was readily available
• There was good knowledge in the community of the planning and
approval processes we needed to go through
• There was support from an organization specializing in community
energy
• There was support from a university, college or educational centre
• Other keys to success not identified above (please rate as present but
not key to success, contributed mildly, contributed significantly,
was indispensable to success)

Please briefly explain how each factor that you identified as "contributing
significantly" or being "indispensable" contributed to the success of the
renewable energy project.

Challenges
What types of challenges were encountered in the development of the
renewable energy project? Please rate each type of challenge on a scale of 1
to 5, with 1 being a very minor challenge and 5 being a very significant
challenge:
• Financial challenges
• Regulatory challenges
• Social challenges
• Technical challenges

Please briefly describe each challenge you rated as "significant" or "very

significant" and explain how they affected the project.
Please briefly explain how each of the challenges that you identified as
"significant" or "very significant" were overcome (if they were).
• Support for the Project
Support for the project
What tools, resources and networks were accessed when establishing and
developing the project? Please list these below.

82
What case studies/examples of other Community Renewable Energy
projects provided inspiration for this project? Please provide names and
contact information if possible.

Community involvement
How would you rate the level of community involvement in the project?
Please briefly describe how community members were involved in
decisions relating to the development of the project, if relevant.
How was information about the project communicated to community
members not directly involved in the project, if this occurred?

How would you describe the attitude of the community towards the
renewable energy project?
• Highly unfavourable
• Unfavourable
• Indifferent
• Favourable
• Highly favourable
• Don’t know

Impacts on the community

Did your community experience any of the following impacts as a result of
the Community Renewable Energy project?
• The social relationships in the community were strengthened
• There was an increased sense of pride and identity in the community
• The community received financial benefits
• The project increased employment in the community
• There was an improvement in the local environment/air quality
• Understanding of climate change and renewable energy increased in
the community
• Other

Did the project create any negative impacts for the community or local
environment?

Further comments
If possible, please provide us with a link to a summary report or website
about your project where we can get further information.
Do you have any further comments?

83
May we contact you for further information relating to this project, if
necessary?
Do you know of anyone else involved with this project to whom we should
send this survey? Please provide their full name(s), job title(s) and email
address(es) below.

84
Appendix C: Negative impacts from CRE from
research

Literature review results. When CRE literature mentions negative impacts

it is usually in the context of renewable energy technologies. For example,
a negative impact of RE development for the environment could be soil
occupation, killing of birds, or fauna displacement (del Rı´o and Burguillo
2009; Oikonomou and others 2009), or a social negative impact such as
visual intrusion and noise (del Rı´o and Burguillo 2009).

Interview results. We also asked about the negative impacts of CRE

projects on the community. We received less information on this subject.
Only five negative impacts were reported, four of these in the community
of Thisted. Negative impacts reported in Thisted were depletion of natural
resources, increased pollution, increased land price, and aesthetic concerns.
Ærø reported that a CRE project created a level of community instability
and division due to protests against the project.

Questionnaire results. All but one community who responded to the

questionnaire stated that there were no negative impacts created as a result
of their CRE projects, or that no negative impacts had yet been identified.
One community in Canada answered that “Building hydro electric projects
cannot be done without impact. The decision to proceed with a
development is a values based decision, which requires a loss of wilderness
in exchange for financial returns. Every project has a footprint”
(Anonymous C 2010).

Trends in negative impacts from interviews and questionnaires. Because

there were very few negative impacts reported, it is not possible to identify
trends between the two methods.

85
Appendix D: SCRE Tool

86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100