Community-based renewable energy in the Lake

This article was downloaded by: [Imperial College London Library] On: 12 March 2012, At: 08:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Community-based renewable energy in the Lake District National Park – local drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions a

a

Joshua Allen , William R. Sheate & Rocio Diaz-Chavez

a

a

Centre for Environmental Policy, Faculty of Natural Sciences, 1st Floor Mechanical Engineering Building, Imperial College London, London, UK Available online: 07 Mar 2012

To cite this article: Joshua Allen, William R. Sheate & Rocio Diaz-Chavez (2012): Communitybased renewable energy in the Lake District National Park – local drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, DOI:10.1080/13549839.2012.665855 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665855

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

Downloaded by [Imperial College London Library] at 08:28 12 March 2012

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Local Environment 2012, 1–20, iFirst Article

Community-based renewable energy in the Lake District National Park – local drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions Joshua Allen∗ , William R. Sheate and Rocio Diaz-Chavez


Centre for Environmental Policy, Faculty of Natural Sciences, 1st Floor Mechanical Engineering Building, Imperial College London, London, UK Diverse communities are often considered to be more stable and productive. To mitigate and adapt to climate change and overcome energy insecurities, international, national and local communities need decentralised alternatives to complement and support traditional centralised energy systems. Policies with top-down targets promote the quick fix rather than the most sustainable scheme, and institutional and social barriers inhibit the local action needed to identify, plan and deliver the most valuable and appropriate alternatives. For diversity and sustainability, how can local communitybased renewable energy (CRE) schemes be valuable and appropriate alternatives? Interviews and case studies with public, private and community-based stakeholders in the Lake District National Park reveal the drivers, enablers and barriers to CRE schemes. Two solutions designed to catalyse and coordinate local action are proposed: CRE plans and champions. Together from the bottom-up, they help to generate, coordinate and communicate the necessary local knowledge, resources and trust to promote positive data sets on energy capacity, opportunity and need. Thus, planning becomes suitably strategic for achieving sustainable energy futures. Keywords: community; renewable energy; Lake District; planning; partnerships

Introduction It is believed by most that the way the UK produces and consumes energy is unsustainable (Scrase et al. 2009). Like many other energy networks, the UK system lacks diversity and thus stability. Many have called the UK’s centralised energy network inefficient, isolated and vulnerable to change (Willis 2006). Most academics and politicians believe a hybrid of centralised and decentralised renewable energy alternatives to be the most appropriate (see e.g. Scrase and MacKerron 2009). A balance must be struck between necessary large centralised energy-producing facilities and smaller diverse, and thus dependable, decentralised energy production. New area-based approaches are required to deliver this sustainable energy future in which local decentralised energy alternatives are more prevalent, productive and popular. A complex mix of policy instruments force, incentivise and empower people to achieve sustainability. Top-down targets can promote the quick fix rather than the most sustainable scheme, and institutional (Walker et al. 2007) and social (Rogers et al. 2008) barriers inhibit the local action needed to identify, plan and deliver the most valuable and appropriate ∗

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1354-9839 print/ISSN 1469-6711 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665855 http://www.tandfonline.com


2

J. Allen et al.

alternatives. Much has been written on the UK’s capacity for renewable energy and the extent of its renewable resource (see e.g. DECC 2011). It is outside the scope of this paper to review the vast academic literature on energy or renewables policy more generally. Instead, it focuses specifically on the under-explored area of community-based renewable energy (CRE) schemes and the Lake District National Park (LDNP), in particular, while placing it within the wider energy and spatial planning context. CRE schemes are relatively small, land-based renewable energy developments with the potential to service and engage multiple individuals, businesses or families to maximise social, economic and environmental opportunities. CRE decentralises the energy system and could generate local income, jobs and trust (Willis 2006). CRE consumers are active and informed producers, empowered and willing to simultaneously increase renewable energy production and lower energy consumption (O’Reilly 2005). Replicated on a national scale, CRE schemes could make a significant contribution, most notably by providing the alternatives that prevent people from trading social and environmental integrity for the target-driven quick fix. With an issue as contentious as renewable energy, in a protected area as valued and rich in natural resources as the LDNP, there are few places better suited to research the value and appropriateness of CRE schemes. CRE schemes are presented not as a panacea to the challenges of climate change or energy security, but just as one of a wide range of policy instruments designed to promote sustainable energy production and consumption. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential role that CRE might play in helping to tackle some of the issues that threaten our sustainability. The ultimate goal was to better inform planners and policy-makers by evaluating current practice and highlighting best practice (thus making energy planning more positive, holistic, strategic, coordinated and community-focused). CRE drivers, enablers and barriers relevant to Lakeland places and communities are summarised so that the most appropriate solutions can be identified. Guiding principles are formulated to help identify the essential characteristics of solutions. Given the numerous legal and financial models and multiple technologies available, this paper deliberately defines renewable energy, community and decentralised energy networks in the broadest possible terms. Sources of renewable energy are defined as those “. . . energy flows that occur naturally and repeatedly in the environment” (ODPM 2004, p. 1). This study bases its definition of community on the one defined by CAG Consultants (2010, p. 16): “local formal and informal social networks, voluntary groups, businesses and interests that operate in a defined geographical area”. Decentralised energy is taken to mean the same as distributed energy, defined in renewable energy strategy (HM Government 2009) as . . . the local supply of electricity and heat which is generated on or near the site where it is used. In practice it is often delivered as a package of energy efficiency and energy supply measures and covers a range of technologies, at varying scales from the household to the community which can generate electricity and heat. (Woodman and Baker 2008, p. 4527)

Energy consumers and producers are subjected to complex, often confusing, and always changing set of policies: . . .

command and control instruments designed to force change; market-based instruments designed to incentivise change and instruments of “good governance” designed to empower people to change.

Local Environment

3

The research reported here touches on all three, but it focuses on the third. Good governance is proposed by the authors as the primary medium through which to catalyse and coordinate CRE schemes at a local level. This paper now sets out the broad national policy context within which CRE schemes are operating in the UK, and in the LDNP, in particular, before outlining the methodology adopted for the empirical research. The findings from this research are then discussed under the broad headings of drivers, barriers, enablers and solutions. Finally, conclusions are drawn and recommendations put forward.


The national policy context The UK must source 15% of its energy (30% of its electricity and 12% of its heat) from renewable technologies by 2020 (HM Government 2009). Further to this, the UK Government has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, with an interim target of 34% by 2020. The UK’s renewable energy strategy (HM Government 2009) outlines how the Government intends to meet its targets. The document aims to advance the role of clean, secure and affordable energy through a viable and varied low-carbon technology mix. It calls for swifter action, with a more strategic, coordinated and democratic planning system, and it harbours designs for engaging and empowering individuals, communities and businesses (HM Government 2009). Plans for a nation-wide “smart grid” aim to inform consumers of their energy consumption through the installation of real-time smart metres (DECC 2009). Smart metres make energy a tangible commodity, helping people to visualise their energy use, transforming the isolated and ill-informed into the active and engaged (Beddington 2008). In addition, the Government’s new renewable energy tariffs, the Renewable Heat Incentive (DECC 2010a) and the “Feed-in Tariffs” (FITs) (DECC 2010b), supplement the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Both help incentivise individuals, communities and businesses to develop small-scale energy developments. With so many policies forcing, incentivising and empowering institutions and actors to develop sustainably, it is important to ask why has more progress not been made? More must be done to empower and engage communities (LGA 2009). By consolidating policy instruments and funding streams under area-based programmes (CAG Consultants 2010), local authorities could efficiently deliver economies of scale and effectively engage and support local stakeholders in overcoming the necessary financial, technical and behavioural barriers associated with building low-carbon communities (LGA 2009). Stephen Hale’s 12 Commandments of Climate Change Strategy (Hale 2010b) outline what must be done to enable swifter, more efficient and effective sustainable development. Domestic energy and climate change policy must . . . . .

.

widen support for action through shared visions; simultaneously reduce emissions, create jobs and foster social equality; gather early momentum by delivering quick, tangible and popular public goods; develop socially just frameworks that help the needy first; mobilise communities and NGOs to lay the social foundations for widespread behavioural change and support local authorities with the resources to be strategic and coordinate and galvanise local efforts.

CRE schemes fulfil these guiding principles. In theory, if sufficient resources are spent on coordinating and strategically planning their deployment, they are an appropriate vehicle through which to drive positive sustainable development.

4

J. Allen et al.


The coalition government Britain’s new coalition government intends to be the “the greenest government ever” (HM Government 2010). Its “programme for Government” (HM Government 2010) calls for more renewable energy production and notes the importance of a “smart grid”, FITs and ROCs and CRE schemes where local people benefit. The coalition plans to fully implement the Sustainable Communities Act (CLG 2008) by devolving powers to local authorities, communities and individuals (CAG Consultants 2010). Their new “Big Society” gives “forward thinking, entrepreneurial, community-minded people” (HM Government 2010) the freedom, power and responsibility to plan sustainable futures. Planning must not be driven by those with the resources and knowledge to dictate development. Ideally, local authorities must endeavour to practise “good governance” through the engaging, coordinated and strategic planning programmes advocated by Hale (2010b) and the Local Government Association (2009). Without them, local authorities run the risk of preserving a rigid and reactive planning system that encourages piecemeal development. Planning policy instruments Crawford and French (2008) suggested that local authorities need more power to champion locally shared sustainable energy visions. Authorities and communities need access to new strands of funding and new planning tools to maximise the potential of sustainable synergies (Porritt 2009). Spatial planning is an area of governance in which local authorities and communities can proactively work together to strategically unite social, economic and environmental agendas and secure a positive, sustainable future. Local people can help to highlight opportunity and develop strategies that rally actors and institutions behind tangible, meaningful action (Hale 2010a). Currently, pending reform from the coalition government, sustainable development at a local level is implemented through the Sustainable Communities Strategy (CLG 2008). A sustainable future or vision is constructed through a “local strategic partnership” and enforced through the principal spatial planning document, the local development framework (LDF) or local plan (Porritt 2009). The LDF is the local stakeholders’ areabased vision for development and contains numerous plans and strategies. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (CLG 2004) ensure that sustainability appraisal (SA) is performed on all LDFs. Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive) (OJ 2001) ensures that strategic environmental assessment is carried out on all plans and programmes likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) requires environmental impact assessment (EIA) for all projects outlined in Annexes I and II (OJ 1985). SA and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are systematic, strategic processes designed to investigate the impacts of all alternative courses of action and so identify the actions that maximise sustainability, increasing the positive outcomes and reducing undesirable impacts (Partidario et al. 2008). Sustainable actions must be products of multistakeholder discourse and engagement (Partidario et al. 2008). By sharing and collating data and knowledge, institutions and actors engage in a productive and proactive partnership that cultivates the solutions to complex local planning issues. Such collective action will require new forms of governance that empower and engage communities (Reed et al. 2009). River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive are the closest local authorities and communities have come to developing effective interdisciplinary partnerships, giving such collaborations prominence and scope for development (Reed et al. 2009).

Local Environment

5


Under the Public Participation Directive (2003/35/EC), all plans, programmes and planning applications that threaten to impact upon authorities’ sustainable objectives must be disseminated to the public for review, prior to implementation (DEFRA 2009). Communities and key stakeholders must be engaged and consulted as early as possible to ensure that the most appropriate and innovative alternatives are developed (Cooper 2004). Once found, the appropriateness of alternatives must be assessed using key criteria representative of local wants and needs. These key criteria are constructed by “local strategic partnerships” and are called SA objectives (Partidario et al. 2008). Planning policy tools Landscapes and ecosystems contain multiple systems with evolving needs. It is difficult to find the future land uses that minimise trade-offs and exploit positive synergies (CRE 2010). Accurate geographical information on local energy supply and demand coupled with expertise on the capacity of the landscape enables planners to gain insights into which communities have the greatest need and should be given priority (LGA 2009) and which have the greatest opportunity. To ensure that the right alternatives are discovered and developed, rural areas need more holistic and deliberative ways of screening, scoping and assessing their multiple land uses. The Public Benefit Recording System (PBRS) is a geographic information system (GIS) that consolidates data and produces maps to plan area-based sustainable development (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). The system identifies synergies between economic, environmental and social needs/opportunities to ensure that sustainable development is maximised in a given area (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). Through the PBRS, local action is prioritised and piloted in the areas most likely to provide the best sustainable outcomes. The PBRS uses the “Indices of Deprivation” to build a socioeconomic baseline that highlights the locales and communities most in need (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). There is no reason why the PBRS could not be emulated to proactively plan the development of positive CRE schemes in local places. The 2003 Energy White Paper (Department of Trade & Industry 2003) was the first government document to advocate and visualise a local model for sustainable energy production and consumption (i.e. CRE schemes). Since then, CRE schemes have grown in number and diversity (Adams 2008) and a body of work has grown exploring the drivers that incentivise and inhibit project development. Sustainable energy futures There are two extreme, ultimately opposing, visions of the UK’s renewable energy future. .

.

A centralised and standardised low-carbon energy network, reliant on large wind farms and nuclear power stations. A decentralised and innovative low-carbon energy network composed of a broad mix of small- to medium-scale technologies.

Today, the majority of Britain’s public, private and residential communities rely on a centralised energy network within which large quantities of energy can be generated and transported to supply regular and predictable demand (MacKay 2008). Britain has a high energy demand, thus making centralised energy production essential, at least in the short to the medium term. That being said, centralised networks are not well equipped to deal with the risks


6

J. Allen et al.

posed by climate change and national energy insecurity (Bouffard and Kirschen 2008). Willis (2006) compared decentralised and dispersed energy networks to large centralised energy networks and found them to be relatively inefficient, isolated and vulnerable. Willis (2006) noted that communities reliant on centralised systems are passive and have little knowledge of the energy they receive or the quantities they consume. A renewable energy mix is essential (MacKay 2008), but the current centralised network is not built to accommodate multiple technologies reliant on intermittent sources of energy (Howard et al. 2009). By decentralising the energy network somewhat, it may be possible to overcome many of the constraints and risks associated with the current centralised system. In decentralised networks, buildings become the power stations and communities become active and informed producers and consumers (Willis 2006). Small-scale and distributed powerbases participate in a network that both supplies and consumes power as demand fluctuates (Willis 2006), essentially transforming the national grid from an energy highway to a “smart grid” or “intelligent broker” (O’Reilly 2005) that connects and harnesses the power of pocket communities. Decentralised grids utilise renewable and combined heat and power technologies, making them more robust, energy-efficient, cost-effective (Walker 2008a) and less carbon-intensive (Bouffard and Kirschen 2008). Despite the obvious merits of a decentralised network and the pitfalls of a completely centralised network, small- to medium-scale community enterprises, on their own, will have a limited impact on national energy production (Willis 2006, Keirstead 2008). The optimum infrastructure for the immediate future has to be a hybrid of the two (MacKay 2008). Drivers and barriers Climate change and energy insecurity are not the only issues driving local authorities and communities towards developing CRE schemes (Walker et al. 2007). The reasons for developing them span the entire sustainability spectrum. Some develop projects in order to reap the economic rewards brought about by greater job opportunity (Walker et al. 2007) or lower energy costs (Walker 2008a). Others are motivated by the view that local renewable energy generation tackles global climate change (Walker et al. 2007) and conserves natural resources (Rogers et al. 2008). Others consider the social benefits of CRE schemes and their ability to drive behavioural change by establishing trust and social cohesion (Devine-Wright et al. 2007). Most of the barriers to CRE schemes mentioned in the literature can be traced back to the institutions that facilitate them and the communities that host them. Some barriers are institutional: communities must liaise with numerous stakeholders, from the Environment Agency to funders willing to invest; moreover, communities need support and expertise to develop projects (Walker 2008b). Expensive feasibility studies are essential if communities are to calculate the rate of return on their investment, but it can be hard to predict the economic and technical feasibility of individual technologies in specific locations (Walker 2008b). Each site and community is unique. Communities often have little knowledge of the potential opportunities and benefits from CRE schemes (Walker et al. 2007). More must be done to educate communities and businesses. Furthermore, most actors and institutions do not have the time, or indeed the energy, to devote to developing schemes (Rogers et al. 2008). Good governance Without the hearts and minds of local communities, governments find it hard to get their communities to produce and consume energy sustainably. To achieve a sustainable energy future, local authorities and communities must coordinate their efforts to deliver


Local Environment

7

behavioural change (Local Government Association 2009). Local authorities must practise good governance by engaging and appeasing interested and affected stakeholders. Good governance considers the present and future needs of all members of society and ensures that all are heard (UN 2010). It is an ideal that is difficult to achieve in practice. Governments, at all levels, must still endeavour to achieve it. The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report, I will if you will – towards sustainable consumption (Sustainable Development Commission 2006), recognises the fact that the government is best placed to coordinate collective action on energy issues, through an enabling policy framework (Sustainable Development Commission 2006, p. 6). It recommends that to effectively tackle the “value–action gap” (the difference between sustainable attitudes and sustainable behaviour), the government must adopt a supportive framework for collective progress, a framework that emphasises the positive opportunities that come with socioeconomic change. The framework calls for schemes and policies that are . . . .

fair, that is, not open to abuse by free-riders or the wealthy; collaborative to unite scattered initiatives; positive and tangible to catalyse and maintain change and built on trust through the four Es: exemplify, enable, encourage and engage (HM Government 2005).

The four Es, exemplify, enable, encourage and engage (HM Government 2005), are a framework of four concepts thought to bring about social change. By building on relatively short-term actions that provide win – win solutions, it is possible to lay the foundations for real long-term sustainable solutions (Sustainable Development Commission 2006). For the four Es to be effective, the public must have a clear idea of what good behaviour is. Governments must be strategic in their interventions to ensure that the right people get the right information and support at the right time. If local authorities are to target their efforts, they need to know who wants to change and who needs to change. The report calls for more funded community-based partnerships and schemes that promote sustainable behaviour (Sustainable Development Commission 2006). The Lake District National Park Established in 1951, at 2292 km2, the LDNP is the largest of England’s 10 national parks, dominating the county of Cumbria. Its 42,000 inhabitants live in 22,930 dwellings (National Parks 2010) largely spread over 20 large settlements and 35 villages (Entec 2008). Households in Cumbria emit twice as much carbon as those in Britain’s urban districts (Willis 2008). Visiting tourists are thought to increase Cumbria’s overall emission levels by 7% (Willis 2008). Together, households and small- to medium-sized businesses contribute 54% of Cumbria’s carbon emissions. Clearly, with energy demand being spread over such a large area, any steps towards a decentralised renewable energy network would be positive. As a National Park, large-scale energy facilities are prohibited. As well as providing the means to exploit the park’s abundant natural resources appropriately, CRE schemes could have a positive impact on the social – economic divisions between rich and poor, tourist and resident, and young and old. Cumbrians have been consulted on their willingness and ability to support a trust aimed at coordinating and championing the development of Cumbrian CRE schemes (Cumbria Vision). The trust would act as a facilitator and a negotiator to ensure that the most sustainable energy options are delivered. The consultation process yielded 270 responses


8

J. Allen et al.

(Cumbria Vision). Totally, 90% of individuals strongly supported CRE schemes in Cumbria and 84% were willing to invest between £500 and £2500 in the trust. The park has been commended for its active communities, vibrant green business sector and strong public, private and third sector partnerships (Willis 2008). Paradoxically, tensions have been highlighted, too, most notably between the local economic and environmental agendas (Willis 2008). Presently, the LDNP Partnership (LDNPP) actively encourages the development of community energy solutions and has already assessed the potential for hydropower in the Park (Inter Hydro Technology 2009). The Sustainable Development Fund of the LDNP Authority (LDNPA) supports renewable energy projects in the Park; it funds feasibility studies and portions of the capital costs of CRE schemes (Lake District National Park Authority 2010). The LDNPP also has a clear management plan and LDF (Lake District National Park Partnership 2010). Both statutory plans outline the long-term policies, plans and programmes that will help to deliver the LDNPP’s sustainable vision for 2030. Cumbria’s Renewable Energy Panel published a scoping study (Holgate, Cumbria Vision) that revealed the economic benefits of different renewable technologies. It stresses the need for a renewable mix robust enough to weather environmental, political and economic change and flexible enough to adapt as opportunities arise. The report highlights the faults in the current planning system, stressing the need to engage and educate the landowners who ultimately dictate the location of developments (Holgate, Cumbria Vision). It advocates centralised and decentralised energy networks in Cumbria, finally concluding that large wind farms would be dominant in the immediate future, but predicting that by 2050 CRE schemes would play a more important role, offering more jobs and compatibility with the county’s dispersed and decentralised population (Holgate, Cumbria Vision). Research methodology The primary research was qualitative, bringing together the opinions and experiences of community groups, researchers and policy-deliverers. The main research question was to understand how CRE schemes can contribute towards a sustainable energy future and the main barriers to successful implementation. Scoping interviews, a background study on the LDNP and a wider literature review all served to stimulate the development of clear research themes and identify key stakeholders for interview. Sixteen key stakeholders took part in the semi-structured interviews (Figure 1). The interviews were designed to collect opinions from a disparate group of individuals, ensuring that most, if not all, areas of consensus and contention were explored (Glass et al. 2009). All key stakeholders answered the same questions so that trends and gaps between different stakeholders could be identified. Questions were open-ended to ensure that interviewees could talk around the issues, emphasising points and elaborating on key lines of questioning (Denscombe 2007). Semi-structured interviews were supplemented by three short case studies. The case studies enrich the sample with evidence-based, anecdotal accounts of CRE schemes in the LDNP. A workshop organised by the low-carbon Lake District initiative was attended on 1 July 2010. It took the form of a structured, deliberative forum of key stakeholders exploring the creation of a Cumbrian Community-Owned Renewable Trust. A grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006) was adopted for the analysis of the data, since this was an exploratory study using qualitative case study and semi-structured interview data: the subject matter was contemporary, the researchers had no control over the events and the main research question was about how CRE schemes could be more effectively implemented


Local Environment

Figure 1.

9

The organisations interviewed.

(Yin 2009). The main findings from the primary research were manually and iteratively organised into eight emerging themes. As themes started to emerge, they were clustered and aggregated into key strands of consensus (trends) and contention (gaps), between the data sets, individual stakeholders and stakeholder categories. This process of aggregation was repeated throughout, in the literature review, stakeholder interviews, case studies and workshop, until no new themes emerged. The themes were then organised into a planned structure consisting of four groups: CRE drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions. Two solutions designed to catalyse and coordinate local action were considered, CRE plans and CRE champions. Analysis and discussion It is clear from the literature review that establishing consensus is essential if local authorities, businesses and communities are to make positive, proactive and coordinated progress towards a sustainable energy future (Porritt 2009, Sustainable Development Commission 2006). Similarly, isolating contentions is important to identify the potential barriers to progress (Walker 2008b). Following the manual and iterative consolidation of the core themes, and their subsequent organisation into CRE drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions, it is clear that the stakeholders agree to a large extent on the barriers, enablers and solutions. Moreover, their views are, on the whole, consistent with those found in the literature. The stakeholders do, however, have different ideas on the source and nature of the core drivers and different visions for the LDNP sustainable energy future. When asked to consider current strategies and plans, the stakeholders disagreed on the appropriateness of CRE plans and champions, but stressed that they would be valuable if action-focused and based on the guiding principles outlined below. Barriers Highlighting the main barriers and isolating their source help local authorities to construct the policies needed to coordinate valuable and appropriate energy alternatives. There are many barriers to CRE schemes in the LDNP (Figure 2). The majority of the stakeholders

J. Allen et al.


10 Figure 2. The drivers and barriers to CRE schemes in the Lake District National Park. Source: 1, Walker et al. 2007; 2, Willis 2008; 3, Walker 2008b; 4, Devine-Wright et al. 2007; 5, Rogers et al. 2008; 6, Inter Hydro Technology 2009; 7, Lake District National Park Partnership 2010; 8, HM Government 2010.

Local Environment

11

attribute the number of barriers to the idea of community-based renewable developments being relatively new. Research participants are generally united in their grasp of the core barriers to CRE schemes:


(1) a general lack of communication, coordination and holistic expertise; (2) a general lack of data on the energy capacity, opportunity and need in local landscapes and communities; (3) institutional barriers in the public sector and (4) social barriers in the communities themselves. Unexpectedly, the list given above and Figure 2 show that the stakeholders offer a more detailed range of barriers than the literature, which focuses on the institutional and bureaucratic (Walker 2008a, Rogers et al. 2008) and economic (Walker 2008b) barriers, indicating either that more research is needed or that the LDNP has a relatively large number of barriers. Should other independent studies show the latter to be true, then successful CRE schemes in the LDNP are testament to what could be achieved throughout the UK and abroad. Drivers To assess the value and appropriateness of existing and new policy recommendations, policy-makers require a policy goal. The stakeholders were asked for their visions for the LDNP’s sustainable energy future. Consistent with the literature, their responses reveal a common dichotomy in energy policy. While the stakeholders agree that there is a need for a balance between decentralised and centralised energy networks (Mackay 2008), the public sector stakeholders and community groups see CRE schemes as being dominant, while the private sector stakeholders see them as important but inferior to centralised facilities. This difference in opinion matters little in the confines of the LDNP, where CRE schemes are appropriate and large developments prohibited, but it is significant in the context of national and international energy policies. National and international drivers were seen by the stakeholders to have an effect on the value of CRE schemes in general, ultimately impacting on the number of people who consider them to be appropriate alternatives. Implementing national and international drivers aimed at championing CRE as an alternative to the traditional centralised energy network might, therefore, be an effective way of encouraging more diversity in sustainable energy futures. If we can make Lakeland communities more economically viable through renewable technologies, then great – bring them on. (Economic Forum)

The influence of the Holgate (Cumbria Vision) report is significant in Cumbria in that it highlights the value of CRE schemes. CRE schemes could generate almost 10 times the jobs of centralised facilities in the Park, albeit for 9 times less energy. Clearly, there are bound to be trade-offs between a low-carbon energy future and a sustainable one, but the inherent limitations of centralised networks (Willis 2006) and multiple benefits of decentralised networks suggest that the more CRE schemes there are the better, regardless of their capacity to generate energy. Community energy is a good “Trojan Horse” for bringing about cultural change . . . bringing individuals and communities together. (Land Manager)


12

J. Allen et al.

The stakeholders have different ideas on the principal drivers of CRE. Unsurprisingly, given the research participants and the nature of the study area, the majority of the drivers are local. The public sector stakeholders consider national and local top-down policies to be principal drivers, whereas community groups are motivated by the social advantages of CRE schemes. Consistent with the literature, the community group stakeholders and workshop delegates emphasise the bottom-up nature of CRE schemes to unify communities, leading to long-lasting behavioural change, self-sufficiency and energy efficiency. Without trust, participation and cooperation, a sustainable energy future will be harder to achieve. If CRE schemes can generate the necessary trust and knowledge in communities, then their widespread installation might be necessary rather than just contributory. The public sector stakeholders mention how CRE schemes are liable to catalyse a “snowball effect” whereby the act of developing a scheme results in a whole host of other sustainable efforts. As the benefits of localisation and self-sufficiency become widely known, it is likely that this “snowball effect” will grow in strength and influence, adding to the business case for CRE. The research recognises that drivers supply a complex and sometimes confusing set of messages to communities. Measures must be taken to corral and advertise drivers to promote the positive impacts of CRE schemes; that way the “snowball effect” will be more effective, strengthening the case for decentralised energy on a scale currently thought to be impractical. People are more susceptible to behaviour change when on holiday in a place like the Lake District. (Community Group)

When asked to define sustainability in the context of the LDNP, all the stakeholders mention the need for a balance between social, economic and environmental agendas. Similarly, when asked to define community in the same context, the stakeholders mention the economic sectors, social residential settlements and communities of interest. Clearly, sustainability is considered an essential component of any energy future, but in the LDNP, its importance and impact seem to be multiplied by the nature and value of the landscape. The “low-carbon Lake District” report (Willis 2008) rallies stakeholders to use the Lakeland brand to encourage “green” development and tourism. If Lakeland CRE schemes can contribute to that cause, then their impact in promoting sustainable lifestyles is likely to transcend the LDNP’s boundary.

Enablers It was made evident in the literature review that to maximise the benefits of CRE schemes, communities require information and help from multiple stakeholders. Three case studies on three very different CRE schemes (see Table 1) yield three principal enablers: . . .

experts, that is, actors and institutions able to offer specialist services and advice; funders, that is, actors and institutions able to offer funds; and doers, that is, actors and institutions able to offer valued commodities such as time and effort.

The qualities of these enablers varied significantly, affecting the success of each scheme. This variation might be related to differences in the expertise used to deliver each project, but this is only speculation by the authors and cannot be proved within the confines of this study. Interestingly, public, private and community groups all played important roles

Local Environment

13


Table 1. Case studies of local CRE schemes. Case 1: A hydroelectric scheme on the River Greta

Case 2: An air source heating scheme in High Wray village hall

In early 2010, floods ruined plans to build a hydroelectric scheme on the River Greta near Keswick. The damage increased capital costs by 25%, significantly reducing the overall return on the investment. The scheme was abandoned

High Wray village hall has The Forestry Commission uses a thermal insulation, double wood fuel boiler to heat its glazing and an air source 1300 m2 visitor centre in Griezdale Forest. In total, 300 heat pump. National Energy m3 of wood chips are burnt Action helped annually. The boiler is currently the community conduct powered by a diesel engine, but an energy audit and measures are being taken to Voluntary Action Cumbria investigate the feasibility of a helped them to apply for local hydroelectric scheme funding

Case 3: A wood fuel boiler scheme in Grizedale Forest

Feasibility and design studies The building’s heating system The FC’s expertise, its had been carried out and had to be upgraded to install fundraising abilities and paid for by the LDNPA’s the pump, delaying the logistical resources have Sustainable Development scheme. The low-carbon made the project a real Fund and Keswick’s heat produced and saved success. Wood fuel schemes neighbourhood forum to energy, significantly in north Yorkshire and ascertain potential reducing the hall’s heating Northumberland were energy capacity, financial bills but increasing consulted to ensure that the return and construction electricity consumption challenges could be predicted costs. The scheme and planned for. Planning had received the full backing Five years on, the community permissions and permits were need an upgrade. The pump of the wider community and easier to obtain, given the fact is too loud and energylocal politicians that the Forestry Commission hungry. The community owned the land A 94-year-old (the only cannot help but think that available member of the there may have been other, Transportation, a common community with the skills more appropriate, source of carbon in wood fuel required) applied for funds. sustainable energy solutions schemes, is minimised by an Without this highly skilled to their energy needs established supply chain. retiree and others, the project Commercial management would not have had access to The High Wray community and harvesting operations share their experiences with the funding streams and located less than a mile away other community groups on volunteers it did a regular basis, offering “tea The facility has done a lot to Despite failure, the community and tour”. Who knows how promote the importance and learnt a lot about CRE. There many schemes have been benefits of sustainable are no plans to rescue the developed as a direct result energy. Visitors to the centre work that has already been of the High Wray can see and read about the conducted and most of the community? wood fuel boiler. money, time and effort spent Representatives from other has gone to waste businesses have toured the facility in an effort to follow suit

in the case studies, proving that all three key stakeholder groups are important in coordinating and catalysing CRE schemes. The research suggests that all stakeholder groups know the true value of CRE schemes. Local people need the mechanisms and means to share this knowledge and coordinate expertise, funds and efforts so that more people can benefit (CAG Consultants 2010). Given the limited size of the sample, it is difficult to get an idea of how representative the case studies are. A more extensive set of case studies

14

J. Allen et al.

might yield more conclusive evidence on the importance of individual enablers and their resilience to persistent barriers.


We need a one-stop-shop; a place where we can get all the information we need and feel confident that it is reliable and unbiased. (workshop delegate)

The most successful and ambitious project (the Grizedale Forest biomass boiler scheme) found it relatively easy to obtain planning permissions and permits because the principal developers and experts owned the land. The same CRE scheme enjoyed a network of experienced contacts that were able to offer advice. Should local authorities wish to promote CRE schemes in the future, audits of their own land might unearth similar assets and opportunities. Communities are made-up of “laymen” unaware of all their natural assets. They’re vulnerable to taking the wrong advice from specialist developers and neglect more appropriate technologies. (workshop delegate)

None of the three CRE schemes were perfectly suited to their locale and few alternatives seem to have been seriously considered. If expertise, funds and resources were consolidated and coordinated by an institution in contact with a wider array of cooperative stakeholders, communities would be able to consider more sites and technologies, making it easier for them discover and deliver the alternatives that maximise sustainable development (CAG Consultants 2010). Prime settlements and sectors Two broad suggestions are definable from the stakeholders’ opinions on the prime settlements and sectors for CRE schemes, both of which could be acted upon simultaneously. Why can’t failing sheep and dairy farms be turned into energy farms? (Economic Forum)

(1) CRE schemes in isolated settlements, such as farms and households off the gas grid suffering from fuel poverty. Big hotels, schools, outdoor centres and B&Bs, visited by thousands annually, are prime spots for inspiring, exemplar projects. (Community Group)

(1) CRE schemes in large, visible schools, hotels and B&Bs. Public places offer the added opportunity of engaging multiple communities of interest – local residents, businesses and national and international tourists alike. Solutions: CRE plans and champions Identifying the CRE drivers, enablers and barriers helps to justify the adoption of CRE plans and champions. Here, the authors summarise the merits of the CRE plans and champions, by cross-referencing to the literature and drawing on key themes identified in the stakeholder interviews, case studies and workshop. CRE plans could facilitate holistic, proactive planning by consolidating data sets on renewable technologies and mapping them at appropriate scales using GIS (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). The plan’s principal aim is to better inform local people and plan-makers at the appropriate levels of assessment. CRE plans have the potential to


Local Environment

15

isolate natural, economic and social resources, locating the settlements and sectors requiring help (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). It is clear from this research that without CRE plans, such opportunity and need could go unnoticed. Identifying the viable locales and positive alternatives gives local landowners, developers and authorities more reasons to say yes to CRE schemes. The LDNPA hydro feasibility study (Inter Hydro Technology 2009) has generated interest from new investors wishing to explore the potential of discovered locales. The discovery of new sustainable synergies as a result of CRE plans might attract new funding streams, leading to more positive and proactive action. Incorporating CRE plans into the planning process will likely improve the efficiency and effectiveness of statutory assessments. Formally placed within the LDF alongside other supplementary planning documents, at the interface between strategic and project-level assessments, CRE plans could help to reduce impact assessment fatigue by integrating and focusing resources, knowledge and effort (Hale 2010b). As formalised supplementary planning documents, CRE plans could provide the necessary alternatives for truly flexible and creative EIAs and SEAs. Such a contribution is likely to ensure that CRE assessments remain relevant and strategic, while appraising alternatives effectively and in a timely manner. CRE champions could help to rally support and provide the resources, expertise and funds to catalyse and coordinate local action. CRE champions work in partnership with existing stakeholders to facilitate the exchange of data, skills and expertise and ensure that communities have the resources and knowledge to make the choices required to develop the most valuable and appropriate energy alternatives. Without them, the LDNP and the UK are at risk of not realising their renewable potential and a sustainable energy future. Research participants recommend that CRE plans map existing CRE schemes to display engaged and disengaged communities. CRE champions should then focus CRE campaigns on the disengaged communities, lacking the time, skills and knowledge to invest. CRE champions can enable, engage, encourage and exemplify, empowering Lakeland communities to change (HM Government 2005). This principle can be likened to Hale’s (2010b) call to establish positive momentum and the need to exemplify positive actions (HM Government 2005), both of which are essential when trying to establish the necessary community trust and tolerance to catalyse and coordinate more CRE schemes. Further research and a number of pilot tests will be required if the effectiveness of both CRE plans and champions is to be determined conclusively. Pilot projects should be sufficiently different to help ensure that CRE plans and champions can be adapted for different landscapes and communities. The results reveal strong support for both solutions, but suggestions were made and have been consolidated to form guiding principles. The guiding principles serve to highlight the strong consensus between the views isolated in the literature review and those identified in the primary research. In order to corral CRE drivers and dissolve CRE barriers, CRE plans and champions must: .

. .

.

.

communicate and coordinate positive data sets on renewable capacity, opportunity and need; generate trust and innovation from the bottom-up and be transparent and flexible; base proactive and positive planning on clear, consistent and continuously implemented criteria; explore and evaluate all energy alternatives, including both CRE and centralised facilities and remain flexible to encourage local innovation, creativity and the importation of new technologies.

16

J. Allen et al.


“An action plan does not equal action” (Community Group) The stakeholders disagreed on the appropriateness of CRE plans and champions in light of existing policies and plans. Most support them, but the few community groups that question their value do so only to emphasise the need for bottom-up, action-focused policies. CRE plans and champions must, therefore, rise to the challenge by adhering to the guiding principles. The nature of the study area calls into question the value and appropriateness of the research outcomes in areas outside the LDNP. Pilot schemes and more research are required to support the findings and justify the adoption of CRE plans and champions throughout Britain and abroad. Wider implications of the research: “think globally, act locally” To assess the true value and appropriateness of CRE plans and champions, the research outcomes must be set within a broader national and international context. It is important to note that while this study has been conducted exclusively within the boundaries of a British National Park, the study’s main themes, outcomes and mechanisms could be relevant for other places, whether they be rural or urban, designated or undesignated, or in the UK or abroad. Compared with local CRE schemes, it is harder, on a national scale, to achieve all the principles of sustainability because the impacts are that much greater and more complex. This research has highlighted that, at the local level, sustainable development has the potential to be maximised and trade-offs minimised through the diversification of renewable schemes. Ideally, all opportunities are exploited and all needs are met. Serviced with the right resources, given the appropriate national and international exposure and schooled in holistic and strategic planning, local authorities and communities could have a national impact of international significance (Walker et al. 2007). The principal values of CRE schemes, local production and consumption, are part of the broader national and international trends of localism. The coalition government’s Decentralisation and Localism Act 2011 laid out their plans for a “Big Society” into law. The Act aims to help to empower local authorities and communities to retain the local services and resources needed to complement national and international efforts for sustainable development. CRE schemes are one of the many alternatives that champion decentralisation, localism and sustainable development. Other initiatives have proven to be effective, and it is important that CRE schemes work alongside other mechanisms designed to catalyse and coordinate behavioural change. Area-based energy efficiency approaches, for example, are becoming increasingly common in the UK and abroad where key energy stakeholders, such as the Energy Saving Trust in the UK, tackle the challenges of climate change and energy security “street by street” (CAG Consultants 2010). Thanks to these initiatives, cavity wall insulation and double glazing are now increasingly common. Securing local supply chains is important when securing sustainable futures. By bringing together key stakeholders, local partnerships can help to develop local supplies of renewable energy/ fuel (CAG Consultants 2010). Some local authorities and communities are planning integrated and long-term sustainable visions (see e.g. Tibbalds 2009). This research has clearly shown that CRE schemes can be vehicles for catalysing and coordinating sustainable energy visions; however, CRE schemes might be more effective if they are part of more ambitious “Master Plans” and regional, national and even international initiatives

Local Environment

17


that design and champion sustainable societies, rather than just decentralised sustainable energy networks.

Conclusions The case studies outlined demonstrate that given the opportunity and faced with the need, communities in the UK (and elsewhere) could spark the required renewable revolution. Protected areas such as the LDNP are likely to have the renewable resources to make a significant contribution towards their sustainable energy future. Planning restrictions often prevent the development of large renewable installations in these areas, so their local communities must contribute using alternative, less invasive measures to prevent compromising environmental and social integrity. CRE schemes, planned strategically and coordinated holistically, empower communities to be part of positive sustainable energy solutions (Willis 2006, 2008). CRE schemes are not a panacea for global, national, regional or local energy issues, rather they should be promoted as one vehicle for reshaping energy systems, a vehicle through which policy instruments can offer alternatives that simultaneously lower energy consumption and increase renewable energy production in a single locale. In addition to the guiding principles for CRE plans and champions, the research identified the following recommendations from the stakeholder interviews: .

.

.

.

existing CRE schemes should be audited to identify the engaged/disengaged communities and prioritise their efforts more effectively; CRE schemes should locate where supply and demand are closest and opportunity and need greatest; CRE schemes should be primarily sited in public locales, such as schools, to maximise community engagement and catalyse a sustainable “snowball effect”. Once the pilot schemes have the “ball” rolling, priority can be given to championing CRE schemes on a larger scale and isolating communities in need; and CRE schemes should be built around existing partnerships and policies to ensure that new actions do not duplicate efforts.

From an academic perspective, the research illustrates the value of multi-stakeholder engagement in focusing on the barriers to CRE schemes at the local level, an area poorly researched to date. By exploring CRE as a mechanism for planning and constructing a sustainable energy future in the LDNP, this paper highlights the benefits of promoting community participation beyond traditional community consultation in planning. To be the “greenest government ever” (HM Government 2010), the coalition government must practise good governance, providing local communities and authorities with clearer and better reasons to take on CRE schemes. Without area-based policies, plans, programmes and partnerships to help communities directly, successful CRE schemes will be limited to the communities already able and willing to overcome current CRE barriers. The research suggests that, if implemented properly, CRE plans and champions could offer the communities with the capacity and opportunity and need the chance to find local win–win solutions to local, national and international energy issues, securing a sustainable energy future.

Acknowledgements The authors thank all those who had participated in the research.

18

J. Allen et al.


References Adams, S., 2008. Local carbon communities: a study of community energy projects in the UK [online]. Available from: http://www.ruralnet.com/ [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Beddington, J., 2008. Introduction to Section 4 – energy demand management. Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4411. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.013 [Accessed 2 July 2010]. Bouffard, F. and Kirschen, D., 2008. Centralised and distributed electricity systems. Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4504– 4508. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.060 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. CAG Consultants, 2010. Power to our neighbourhoods: towards integrated local sustainable energy solutions – learning from success [online]. Available from: http://www.ashdenawards.org/reports [Accessed 2 July 2010]. Centre for Rural Economy, 2010. Sustainable uplands: re-shaping land use policy for our hills [online]. Available from: www.relu.ac.uk [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications, 211. Communities and Local Government, 2004. Planning and compulsory purchase act 2004. London: The Stationary Office. Communities and Local Government, 2008. Sustainable Communities Act 2007: a guide. London: CLG Publications. Cooper, L., 2004. Guidelines for cumulative effects assessment in SEA of plans. EPMG Occasional Paper 04/LMC/CEA. London: Imperial College. Crawford, J. and French, W., 2008. A low-carbon future: spatial planning’s role in enhancing technological innovation in the built environment. Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4575–4579. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.008 [Accessed 2 July 2010]. Denscombe, M., 2007. The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Berkshire: Open University Press. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2009. Aarhus convention on environmental democracy [online]. Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/international/ aarhus/ [Accessed 4 July 2010] Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2009. Towards a smarter future: government response to the consultation on electricity and gas smart metering. London: The Stationary Office. Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2010a. Renewable Heat Incentive: consultation on the proposed RHI financial support scheme. London: The Stationary Office. Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2010b. Feed-in tariffs: government’s response to the summer 2009 consultation. London: The Stationary Office. Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2011. UK renewable energy roadmap. London: DECC, URN 11D/698. Department of Trade & Industry, 2003. Our energy future: creating a low-carbon economy. London: The Stationary Office. Devine-Wright, P., et al., 2007. An empirical study of public beliefs about community renewable energy projects in England and Wales [online]. Working Paper 2: Community Energy Initiatives Project. Available from: http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/cei/Downloads/PDW%20STP%20 Working%20Paper%202.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2012]. Entec UK Ltd, 2008. Sustainability appraisal/strategic environmental assessment of the Lake District local development framework [online]. Available from: http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/ planning/planning policies/ldf/ldf-corestrategy.htm [Accessed 29 June 2010]. Glass, J., Price, M., and Scott, A., 2009. ‘Sustainable’ upland estates in Scotland: using Delphi to operationalise sustainability within a collaborative environment. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on society and resource management, 5–8 July 2009, Vienna, Italy. Perth: Centre for Mountain Studies. Available from: http://www.perth.uhi.ac.uk/specialistcentres/cms/ people/Documents/Glass%20et%20al%20ISSRM%202009%20paper.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2011]. Hale, S., 2010a. Rethinking climate change strategy for national governments – climate change: the challenge for social democracy [online]. Policy Network. Available from: http://www.policynetwork.net/publications_list.aspx [Accessed 20 June 2010]. Hale, S., 2010b. The new commandments of climate change strategy [online]. Green Alliance. Available from: http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea_plist.aspx [Accessed 3 July 2010].


Local Environment

19

HM Government, 2005. Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. London: The Stationary Office. HM Government, 2009. The UK renewable energy strategy. London: The Stationary Office. HM Government, 2010. The coalition: our programme for government. London: Cabinet Office. Howard, D., et al., 2009. The impact of sustainable energy production on land use in Britain though to 2050. Land Use Policy [online], 26 (1), 284 –292. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.017 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Inter Hydro Technology, 2009. Scoping study for the Lake District National Park Authority into potential hydro electric generating sites within the park. Kendal: RG Parkins & Partners Ltd. Keirstead, J., 2008. What changes, if any, would increased levels of low-carbon decentralised energy have on the built environment? Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4518–4521. Available from: doi:10.10 16/j.enpol.2008.09.019 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Lake District National Park Authority, 2010. Sustainable Development Fund [online]. Available from: http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/sustdev_fund-2 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Lake District National Park Partnership, 2010. The partnership’s plan: a management plan for the Lake District National Park 2010–2015. Kendal: Lake District National Park Authority. Local Government Association, 2009. From Kyoto to Kettering, Copenhagen to Croydon: local government’s manifesto for building glow-carbon communities [online]. Available from: http:// new.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/2400550 [Accessed 3 July 2010]. MacKay, D., 2008. Sustainable energy – without the hot air. Cambridge: UIT. National Parks, 2010. National Park facts and figures [online]. Available from: http://www. nationalparks.gov.uk/press/factsandfigures.htm [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Office of Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. Planning policy statement 22: renewable energy. London: Stationary Office. Official Journal, 1985. Directive 85/337/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 175, 5 July 1985, pp. 40 –48 (as amended). Official Journal, 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L 197, 21 July 2001, pp. 30 –37. O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software [online]. Available from: www.oreillynet.com [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Partidario, M., et al., 2008. Sustainability assessment for agriculture scenarios in Europe’s mountain areas: lessons from six study areas. Environmental Management [online], 43, 144–165. Available from: doi 10.1007/s00267-008-9206-3 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Porritt, J., 2009. The standing of sustainable development in government [online]. Available from: http://www.actionsustainability.com/documents/downloads/Jonathon%20Porritt%20Sustainable% 20Development%20report.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2012]. Reed, M., et al., 2009. The future of the uplands. Land Use Policy [online], 26 (1), 204–216. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09. 013 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Rogers, J., et al., 2008. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy [online], 36(11), 4217–4226. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.enpol. 2008.07.028 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Scrase, I. and MacKerron, G., eds., 2009. Energy for the future: a new agenda. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 260. Scrase, I., et al., 2009. Introduction: climate policy is energy policy. In: I. Scrase and G. MacKerron, eds. Energy for the future: a new agenda. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 260. Sustainable Development Commission, 2006. I will if you will – towards sustainable consumption. London: Seacourt. The Environment Partnership Ltd, 2009. An introduction to the Public Benefit Recording System (PBRS) [online]. Available from: http://www.pbrs.org.uk/index.php [Accessed 3 August 2010]. Tibbalds, 2009. Hackbridge sustainable suburb – draft master plan. London: Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2010. What is good governance [online]. Available from: http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm [Accessed 24 February 2012].


20

J. Allen et al.

Walker, G., 2008a. Decentralised systems and fuel poverty: are there any links or risks? Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4514– 4517. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.020 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Walker, G., 2008b. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4401–4405. Available from: doi:10.1016/ j.enpol.2008.09.032 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Walker, G., et al., 2007. Harnessing community energies: explaining and evaluating communitybased localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics, 7 (2), 64–82. Willis, R., 2006. Grid 2.0: the next generation [online]. Available from: http://www.green-alliance. org.uk/uploadedFiles/Publications/Grid20TheNextGeneration.pdf [Accessed 4 August 2010] Willis, R., 2008. Low-carbon Lake District: responding to climate change in the National Park. Kendal: Lake District National Park Authority. Woodman, B. and Baker, P., 2008. Regulatory frameworks for decentralised energy. Energy Policy [online], 36 (12), 4527– 4531. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.017 [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications, 219.