Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy
Community renewable energy projects have recently been promoted and supported in the UK by government policy. A community approach, it is argued in the rhetoric of both government and grassroots activists will change the experience and outcomes of the energy sustainable technology implementation. In this paper, we consider how interpersonal and social trust is implicated in the different meanings given to community in RE programmes and projects, and in the qualities and outcomes that are implied or assumed by taking a community approach. We examine how these meanings play out in examples of projects on the ground, focusing on two contrasting cases in which the relationships between those involved locally have exhibited different patterns of cohesiveness and fracture. We argue that trust does have a necessary part to play in the contingencies and dynamics of community RE projects and in the outcomes they can achieve. Trust between local people and groups that take projects forward is part of the package of conditions which can help projects work. Whilst trust may therefore be functional for the development of community RE and potentially can be enhanced by the adoption of a community approach, this cannot be either assured or assumed under the wide diversity of contexts, conditions and arrangements under which community RE is being pursued and practiced.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mitchell, C. & Bauknecht, D. & Connor, P.M., 2006. "Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 297-305, February.
- Toke, Dave, 2005. "Explaining wind power planning outcomes:: some findings from a study in England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 1527-1539, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:2655-2663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.