IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development


  • Richard Cowell
  • Gill Bristow
  • Max Munday


Conflict around wind farm development has stimulated interest in 'community benefits' - the provision of financial or material benefits by the developers to the area affected by these facilities. By and large, both policy makers and researchers have couched the rationale for community benefits in instrumental terms, i.e. that an increased flow of community benefits will improve the social acceptability of these facilities and thereby expedite planning consent. This paper questions this conventional rationale. Proponents of this rationale neglect the institutionally structured terrain of the planning process; the provision of community benefits can shift in significance depending on whether or not the 'affected community' has any significant influence over wind farm projects. Similarly, our discourse analysis conducted in Wales shows that community benefits are seen predominantly as compensation for impacts, without any clear implication that they should change social attitudes. Our conclusion is that the dominant, instrumental rationale for community benefits obscures other, equally important justifications: the role of community benefits in promoting environmental justice; and how flows of community benefits might better serve the long-term sustainability of wind farm development areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Cowell & Gill Bristow & Max Munday, 2011. "Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 539-557.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:54:y:2011:i:4:p:539-557
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.521047

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:863-870 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jed Cohen, Klaus Moeltner, Johannes Reichl and Michael Schmidthaler, 2016. "An Empirical Analysis of Local Opposition to New Transmission Lines Across the EU-27," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    3. repec:eee:enepol:v:107:y:2017:i:c:p:649-657 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    5. Huesca-Pérez, María Elena & Sheinbaum-Pardo, Claudia & Köppel, Johann, 2016. "Social implications of siting wind energy in a disadvantaged region – The case of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 952-965.
    6. repec:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:245-260 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Upham, Paul & García Pérez, Jesús, 2015. "A cognitive mapping approach to understanding public objection to energy infrastructure: The case of wind power in Galicia, Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 587-596.
    8. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    9. Liljenfeldt, Johanna & Pettersson, Örjan, 2017. "Distributional justice in Swedish wind power development – An odds ratio analysis of windmill localization and local residents’ socio-economic characteristics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 648-657.
    10. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    11. Reynolds, Joanna & Egan, Matt & Renedo, Alicia & Petticrew, Mark, 2015. "Conceptualising the ‘community’ as a recipient of money – A critical literature review, and implications for health and inequalities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 88-97.
    12. repec:eee:enepol:v:110:y:2017:i:c:p:263-270 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kerr, Sandy & Johnson, Kate & Weir, Stephanie, 2017. "Understanding community benefit payments from renewable energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 202-211.
    14. repec:bla:stratm:v:38:y:2017:i:13:p:2682-2703 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    16. Simpson, Genevieve & Clifton, Julian, 2016. "Subsidies for residential solar photovoltaic energy systems in Western Australia: Distributional, procedural and outcome justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 262-273.
    17. Howard, Tanya, 2015. "Olivebranches and idiot's guides: Frameworks for community engagement in Australian wind farm development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 137-147.
    18. repec:eee:enepol:v:110:y:2017:i:c:p:570-580 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Ejdemo, Thomas & Söderholm, Patrik, 2015. "Wind power, regional development and benefit-sharing: The case of Northern Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 476-485.
    20. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:54:y:2011:i:4:p:539-557. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.