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

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Community-based renewable energyin the Lake District National Park –local drivers, enablers, barriers andsolutionsJoshua Allen a , William R. Sheate a & Rocio Diaz-Chavez aa Centre for Environmental Policy, Faculty of Natural Sciences, 1stFloor 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): Community-based renewable energy in the Lake District National Park – local drivers, enablers, barriersand 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-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

Community-based renewable energy in the Lake District NationalPark – 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 EngineeringBuilding, Imperial College London, London, UK

Diverse communities are often considered to be more stable and productive. To mitigateand adapt to climate change and overcome energy insecurities, international, nationaland local communities need decentralised alternatives to complement and supporttraditional centralised energy systems. Policies with top-down targets promote thequick fix rather than the most sustainable scheme, and institutional and social barriersinhibit the local action needed to identify, plan and deliver the most valuable andappropriate alternatives. For diversity and sustainability, how can local community-based renewable energy (CRE) schemes be valuable and appropriate alternatives?Interviews and case studies with public, private and community-based stakeholders inthe Lake District National Park reveal the drivers, enablers and barriers to CREschemes. Two solutions designed to catalyse and coordinate local action areproposed: CRE plans and champions. Together from the bottom-up, they help togenerate, coordinate and communicate the necessary local knowledge, resources andtrust 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 andthus stability. Many have called the UK’s centralised energy network inefficient, isolatedand vulnerable to change (Willis 2006). Most academics and politicians believe a hybridof centralised and decentralised renewable energy alternatives to be the most appropriate(see e.g. Scrase and MacKerron 2009). A balance must be struck between necessarylarge centralised energy-producing facilities and smaller diverse, and thus dependable,decentralised energy production. New area-based approaches are required to deliver thissustainable energy future in which local decentralised energy alternatives are moreprevalent, productive and popular.

A complex mix of policy instruments force, incentivise and empower people to achievesustainability. Top-down targets can promote the quick fix rather than the most sustainablescheme, and institutional (Walker et al. 2007) and social (Rogers et al. 2008) barriers inhibitthe local action needed to identify, plan and deliver the most valuable and appropriate

ISSN 1354-9839 print/ISSN 1469-6711 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665855

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: joshua.allen@climate-consulting.co.uk

Local Environment2012, 1–20, iFirst Article

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

alternatives. Much has been written on the UK’s capacity for renewable energy and theextent of its renewable resource (see e.g. DECC 2011). It is outside the scope of thispaper 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 renewableenergy (CRE) schemes and the Lake District National Park (LDNP), in particular, whileplacing it within the wider energy and spatial planning context.

CRE schemes are relatively small, land-based renewable energy developments with thepotential to service and engage multiple individuals, businesses or families to maximisesocial, economic and environmental opportunities. CRE decentralises the energy systemand could generate local income, jobs and trust (Willis 2006). CRE consumers are activeand informed producers, empowered and willing to simultaneously increase renewableenergy production and lower energy consumption (O’Reilly 2005). Replicated on a nationalscale, CRE schemes could make a significant contribution, most notably by providing thealternatives that prevent people from trading social and environmental integrity for thetarget-driven quick fix.

With an issue as contentious as renewable energy, in a protected area as valued and richin natural resources as the LDNP, there are few places better suited to research the valueand appropriateness of CRE schemes. CRE schemes are presented not as a panacea tothe challenges of climate change or energy security, but just as one of a wide range ofpolicy 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 helpingto tackle some of the issues that threaten our sustainability. The ultimate goal was to betterinform planners and policy-makers by evaluating current practice and highlighting bestpractice (thus making energy planning more positive, holistic, strategic, coordinated andcommunity-focused). CRE drivers, enablers and barriers relevant to Lakeland places andcommunities 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 energynetworks in the broadest possible terms.

Sources of renewable energy are defined as those “. . . energy flows that occur naturallyand 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, businessesand interests that operate in a defined geographical area”.

Decentralised energy is taken to mean the same as distributed energy, defined inrenewable 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 measuresand covers a range of technologies, at varying scales from the household to the communitywhich can generate electricity and heat. (Woodman and Baker 2008, p. 4527)

Energy consumers and producers are subjected to complex, often confusing, and alwayschanging 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.

2 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

The research reported here touches on all three, but it focuses on the third. Good governanceis proposed by the authors as the primary medium through which to catalyse and coordinateCRE schemes at a local level.

This paper now sets out the broad national policy context within which CRE schemesare operating in the UK, and in the LDNP, in particular, before outlining the methodologyadopted for the empirical research. The findings from this research are then discussed underthe broad headings of drivers, barriers, enablers and solutions. Finally, conclusions aredrawn 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) fromrenewable technologies by 2020 (HM Government 2009). Further to this, the UK Govern-ment has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, with an interim targetof 34% by 2020. The UK’s renewable energy strategy (HM Government 2009) outlineshow the Government intends to meet its targets. The document aims to advance the role ofclean, secure and affordable energy through a viable and varied low-carbon technologymix. It calls for swifter action, with a more strategic, coordinated and democratic planningsystem, and it harbours designs for engaging and empowering individuals, communitiesand businesses (HM Government 2009). Plans for a nation-wide “smart grid” aim toinform consumers of their energy consumption through the installation of real-time smartmetres (DECC 2009). Smart metres make energy a tangible commodity, helping people tovisualise their energy use, transforming the isolated and ill-informed into the active andengaged (Beddington 2008). In addition, the Government’s new renewable energy tariffs,the Renewable Heat Incentive (DECC 2010a) and the “Feed-in Tariffs” (FITs) (DECC2010b), supplement the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Both help incentiviseindividuals, communities and businesses to develop small-scale energy developments.

With so many policies forcing, incentivising and empowering institutions and actors todevelop 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 consolidatingpolicy instruments and funding streams under area-based programmes (CAG Consultants2010), local authorities could efficiently deliver economies of scale and effectively engageand support local stakeholders in overcoming the necessary financial, technical andbehavioural barriers associated with building low-carbon communities (LGA 2009).

Stephen Hale’s 12 Commandments of Climate Change Strategy (Hale 2010b) outlinewhat 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 widespreadbehavioural change and

. support local authorities with the resources to be strategic and coordinate andgalvanise local efforts.

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

Local Environment 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

The coalition government

Britain’s new coalition government intends to be the “the greenest government ever” (HMGovernment 2010). Its “programme for Government” (HM Government 2010) calls formore renewable energy production and notes the importance of a “smart grid”, FITs andROCs and CRE schemes where local people benefit. The coalition plans to fully implementthe 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 bedriven by those with the resources and knowledge to dictate development. Ideally, localauthorities must endeavour to practise “good governance” through the engaging, coordi-nated and strategic planning programmes advocated by Hale (2010b) and the LocalGovernment Association (2009). Without them, local authorities run the risk of preservinga rigid and reactive planning system that encourages piecemeal development.

Planning policy instruments

Crawford and French (2008) suggested that local authorities need more power to championlocally shared sustainable energy visions. Authorities and communities need access tonew strands of funding and new planning tools to maximise the potential of sustainablesynergies (Porritt 2009).

Spatial planning is an area of governance in which local authorities and communitiescan proactively work together to strategically unite social, economic and environmentalagendas and secure a positive, sustainable future. Local people can help to highlight oppor-tunity and develop strategies that rally actors and institutions behind tangible, meaningfulaction (Hale 2010a). Currently, pending reform from the coalition government, sustainabledevelopment at a local level is implemented through the Sustainable Communities Strategy(CLG 2008). A sustainable future or vision is constructed through a “local strategic partner-ship” and enforced through the principal spatial planning document, the local developmentframework (LDF) or local plan (Porritt 2009). The LDF is the local stakeholders’ area-based vision for development and contains numerous plans and strategies. The EnvironmentalAssessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations and the Planning and CompulsoryPurchase Act (CLG 2004) ensure that sustainability appraisal (SA) is performed on allLDFs. Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive) (OJ 2001) ensures that strategic environmentalassessment is carried out on all plans and programmes likely to have a significant effect onthe environment, and the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) requires environmentalimpact assessment (EIA) for all projects outlined in Annexes I and II (OJ 1985).

SA and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are systematic, strategic processesdesigned to investigate the impacts of all alternative courses of action and so identify theactions that maximise sustainability, increasing the positive outcomes and reducing unde-sirable impacts (Partidario et al. 2008). Sustainable actions must be products of multi-stakeholder discourse and engagement (Partidario et al. 2008). By sharing and collatingdata and knowledge, institutions and actors engage in a productive and proactive partner-ship that cultivates the solutions to complex local planning issues. Such collective actionwill require new forms of governance that empower and engage communities (Reedet al. 2009). River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive arethe closest local authorities and communities have come to developing effective interdisci-plinary partnerships, giving such collaborations prominence and scope for development(Reed et al. 2009).

4 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

Under the Public Participation Directive (2003/35/EC), all plans, programmes andplanning applications that threaten to impact upon authorities’ sustainable objectivesmust be disseminated to the public for review, prior to implementation (DEFRA 2009).Communities and key stakeholders must be engaged and consulted as early as possibleto ensure that the most appropriate and innovative alternatives are developed (Cooper2004). Once found, the appropriateness of alternatives must be assessed using key criteriarepresentative of local wants and needs. These key criteria are constructed by “localstrategic 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 tofind the future land uses that minimise trade-offs and exploit positive synergies (CRE2010). Accurate geographical information on local energy supply and demand coupledwith expertise on the capacity of the landscape enables planners to gain insights intowhich communities have the greatest need and should be given priority (LGA 2009) andwhich have the greatest opportunity. To ensure that the right alternatives are discoveredand 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 producesmaps to plan area-based sustainable development (The Environment Partnership Ltd2009). The system identifies synergies between economic, environmental and socialneeds/opportunities to ensure that sustainable development is maximised in a given area(The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). Through the PBRS, local action is prioritisedand piloted in the areas most likely to provide the best sustainable outcomes. The PBRSuses the “Indices of Deprivation” to build a socioeconomic baseline that highlights thelocales and communities most in need (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). There isno reason why the PBRS could not be emulated to proactively plan the development ofpositive CRE schemes in local places.

The 2003 Energy White Paper (Department of Trade & Industry 2003) was the firstgovernment document to advocate and visualise a local model for sustainable energy pro-duction and consumption (i.e. CRE schemes). Since then, CRE schemes have grown innumber and diversity (Adams 2008) and a body of work has grown exploring the driversthat 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 windfarms and nuclear power stations.

. A decentralised and innovative low-carbon energy network composed of a broad mixof small- to medium-scale technologies.

Today, the majority of Britain’s public, private and residential communities rely on a centralisedenergy network within which large quantities of energy can be generated and transported tosupply 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 mediumterm. That being said, centralised networks are not well equipped to deal with the risks

Local Environment 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

posed by climate change and national energy insecurity (Bouffard and Kirschen 2008). Willis(2006) compared decentralised and dispersed energy networks to large centralised energynetworks and found them to be relatively inefficient, isolated and vulnerable. Willis (2006)noted that communities reliant on centralised systems are passive and have little knowledgeof 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 multipletechnologies reliant on intermittent sources of energy (Howard et al. 2009).

By decentralising the energy network somewhat, it may be possible to overcome manyof the constraints and risks associated with the current centralised system. In decentralisednetworks, buildings become the power stations and communities become active andinformed producers and consumers (Willis 2006). Small-scale and distributed powerbasesparticipate 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 thepower of pocket communities. Decentralised grids utilise renewable and combined heatand 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 completelycentralised network, small- to medium-scale community enterprises, on their own, will havea limited impact on national energy production (Willis 2006, Keirstead 2008). The optimuminfrastructure 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 andcommunities towards developing CRE schemes (Walker et al. 2007). The reasons fordeveloping them span the entire sustainability spectrum. Some develop projects in orderto 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 localrenewable energy generation tackles global climate change (Walker et al. 2007) andconserves natural resources (Rogers et al. 2008). Others consider the social benefits ofCRE schemes and their ability to drive behavioural change by establishing trust andsocial cohesion (Devine-Wright et al. 2007).

Most of the barriers to CRE schemes mentioned in the literature can be traced back to theinstitutions that facilitate them and the communities that host them. Some barriers areinstitutional: communities must liaise with numerous stakeholders, from the EnvironmentAgency to funders willing to invest; moreover, communities need support and expertise todevelop projects (Walker 2008b). Expensive feasibility studies are essential if communitiesare to calculate the rate of return on their investment, but it can be hard to predict the economicand technical feasibility of individual technologies in specific locations (Walker 2008b).Each site and community is unique. Communities often have little knowledge of the potentialopportunities and benefits from CRE schemes (Walker et al. 2007). More must be done toeducate communities and businesses. Furthermore, most actors and institutions do nothave 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 theircommunities to produce and consume energy sustainably. To achieve a sustainableenergy future, local authorities and communities must coordinate their efforts to deliver

6 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

behavioural change (Local Government Association 2009). Local authorities must practisegood governance by engaging and appeasing interested and affected stakeholders. Goodgovernance considers the present and future needs of all members of society and ensuresthat 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 – towardssustainable consumption (Sustainable Development Commission 2006), recognises thefact 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 betweensustainable attitudes and sustainable behaviour), the government must adopt a supportiveframework for collective progress, a framework that emphasises the positive opportunitiesthat 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 (HMGovernment 2005).

The four Es, exemplify, enable, encourage and engage (HM Government 2005), are a fra-mework of four concepts thought to bring about social change. By building on relativelyshort-term actions that provide win–win solutions, it is possible to lay the foundationsfor 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 behaviouris. Governments must be strategic in their interventions to ensure that the right peopleget the right information and support at the right time. If local authorities are to targettheir efforts, they need to know who wants to change and who needs to change. Thereport calls for more funded community-based partnerships and schemes that promotesustainable 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 (NationalParks 2010) largely spread over 20 large settlements and 35 villages (Entec 2008). House-holds in Cumbria emit twice as much carbon as those in Britain’s urban districts (Willis2008). Visiting tourists are thought to increase Cumbria’s overall emission levels by 7%(Willis 2008). Together, households and small- to medium-sized businesses contribute54% of Cumbria’s carbon emissions. Clearly, with energy demand being spread over sucha 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 themeans to exploit the park’s abundant natural resources appropriately, CRE schemes couldhave a positive impact on the social–economic divisions between rich and poor, tourist andresident, and young and old.

Cumbrians have been consulted on their willingness and ability to support a trust aimedat coordinating and championing the development of Cumbrian CRE schemes (CumbriaVision). The trust would act as a facilitator and a negotiator to ensure that the mostsustainable energy options are delivered. The consultation process yielded 270 responses

Local Environment 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

(Cumbria Vision). Totally, 90% of individuals strongly supported CRE schemes inCumbria 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 sectorand strong public, private and third sector partnerships (Willis 2008). Paradoxically,tensions have been highlighted, too, most notably between the local economic andenvironmental agendas (Willis 2008). Presently, the LDNP Partnership (LDNPP) activelyencourages the development of community energy solutions and has already assessed thepotential for hydropower in the Park (Inter Hydro Technology 2009). The SustainableDevelopment Fund of the LDNP Authority (LDNPA) supports renewable energy projectsin 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 managementplan and LDF (Lake District National Park Partnership 2010). Both statutory plansoutline the long-term policies, plans and programmes that will help to deliver theLDNPP’s sustainable vision for 2030.

Cumbria’s Renewable Energy Panel published a scoping study (Holgate, CumbriaVision) that revealed the economic benefits of different renewable technologies. It stressesthe need for a renewable mix robust enough to weather environmental, political and econ-omic change and flexible enough to adapt as opportunities arise. The report highlights thefaults in the current planning system, stressing the need to engage and educate the land-owners who ultimately dictate the location of developments (Holgate, Cumbria Vision).It advocates centralised and decentralised energy networks in Cumbria, finally concludingthat large wind farms would be dominant in the immediate future, but predicting that by2050 CRE schemes would play a more important role, offering more jobs and compatibilitywith the county’s dispersed and decentralised population (Holgate, Cumbria Vision).

Research methodology

The primary research was qualitative, bringing together the opinions and experiences ofcommunity groups, researchers and policy-deliverers. The main research question was tounderstand how CRE schemes can contribute towards a sustainable energy future andthe main barriers to successful implementation.

Scoping interviews, a background study on the LDNP and a wider literature review allserved to stimulate the development of clear research themes and identify key stakeholdersfor 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 indi-viduals, 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 andgaps between different stakeholders could be identified. Questions were open-ended toensure that interviewees could talk around the issues, emphasising points and elaboratingon key lines of questioning (Denscombe 2007).

Semi-structured interviews were supplemented by three short case studies. The casestudies enrich the sample with evidence-based, anecdotal accounts of CRE schemes inthe LDNP. A workshop organised by the low-carbon Lake District initiative was attendedon 1 July 2010. It took the form of a structured, deliberative forum of key stakeholdersexploring the creation of a Cumbrian Community-Owned Renewable Trust.

A grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006) was adopted for the analysis of the data, sincethis 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 themain research question was about how CRE schemes could be more effectively implemented

8 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

(Yin 2009). The main findings from the primary research were manually and iterativelyorganised into eight emerging themes. As themes started to emerge, they were clustered andaggregated into key strands of consensus (trends) and contention (gaps), between the datasets, individual stakeholders and stakeholder categories. This process of aggregation wasrepeated throughout, in the literature review, stakeholder interviews, case studies and workshop,until no new themes emerged. The themes were then organised into a planned structureconsisting of four groups: CRE drivers, enablers, barriers and solutions. Two solutions designedto 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 localauthorities, businesses and communities are to make positive, proactive and coordinatedprogress towards a sustainable energy future (Porritt 2009, Sustainable DevelopmentCommission 2006). Similarly, isolating contentions is important to identify the potentialbarriers to progress (Walker 2008b). Following the manual and iterative consolidation ofthe core themes, and their subsequent organisation into CRE drivers, enablers, barriersand solutions, it is clear that the stakeholders agree to a large extent on the barriers, enablersand solutions. Moreover, their views are, on the whole, consistent with those found in theliterature. The stakeholders do, however, have different ideas on the source and natureof the core drivers and different visions for the LDNP sustainable energy future. Whenasked to consider current strategies and plans, the stakeholders disagreed on theappropriateness of CRE plans and champions, but stressed that they would be valuable ifaction-focused and based on the guiding principles outlined below.

Barriers

Highlighting the main barriers and isolating their source help local authorities to constructthe policies needed to coordinate valuable and appropriate energy alternatives. There aremany barriers to CRE schemes in the LDNP (Figure 2). The majority of the stakeholders

Figure 1. The organisations interviewed.

Local Environment 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

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 DistrictNational Park Partnership 2010; 8, HM Government 2010.

10J.

Allen

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

attribute the number of barriers to the idea of community-based renewable developmentsbeing relatively new.

Research participants are generally united in their grasp of the core barriers to CREschemes:

(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 land-

scapes 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 amore detailed range of barriers than the literature, which focuses on the institutional andbureaucratic (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 largenumber of barriers. Should other independent studies show the latter to be true, then suc-cessful CRE schemes in the LDNP are testament to what could be achieved throughoutthe 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 forthe LDNP’s sustainable energy future. Consistent with the literature, their responsesreveal a common dichotomy in energy policy. While the stakeholders agree that there isa need for a balance between decentralised and centralised energy networks (Mackay2008), the public sector stakeholders and community groups see CRE schemes as beingdominant, while the private sector stakeholders see them as important but inferior to cen-tralised 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 significantin the context of national and international energy policies. National and internationaldrivers were seen by the stakeholders to have an effect on the value of CRE schemes ingeneral, ultimately impacting on the number of people who consider them to be appropriatealternatives. Implementing national and international drivers aimed at championing CREas an alternative to the traditional centralised energy network might, therefore, be aneffective way of encouraging more diversity in sustainable energy futures.

If we can make Lakeland communities more economically viable through renewabletechnologies, then great – bring them on. (Economic Forum)

The influence of the Holgate (Cumbria Vision) report is significant in Cumbria in that ithighlights the value of CRE schemes. CRE schemes could generate almost 10 times thejobs of centralised facilities in the Park, albeit for 9 times less energy. Clearly, there arebound to be trade-offs between a low-carbon energy future and a sustainable one, butthe inherent limitations of centralised networks (Willis 2006) and multiple benefits ofdecentralised networks suggest that the more CRE schemes there are the better, regardlessof their capacity to generate energy.

Community energy is a good “Trojan Horse” for bringing about cultural change . . . bringingindividuals and communities together. (Land Manager)

Local Environment 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

The stakeholders have different ideas on the principal drivers of CRE. Unsurprisingly, giventhe research participants and the nature of the study area, the majority of the drivers arelocal. The public sector stakeholders consider national and local top-down policies to beprincipal drivers, whereas community groups are motivated by the social advantages ofCRE schemes. Consistent with the literature, the community group stakeholders and work-shop delegates emphasise the bottom-up nature of CRE schemes to unify communities,leading to long-lasting behavioural change, self-sufficiency and energy efficiency. Withouttrust, participation and cooperation, a sustainable energy future will be harder to achieve.If CRE schemes can generate the necessary trust and knowledge in communities, thentheir 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 ofother sustainable efforts. As the benefits of localisation and self-sufficiency becomewidely 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 acomplex and sometimes confusing set of messages to communities. Measures must betaken 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 decentra-lised energy on a scale currently thought to be impractical.

People are more susceptible to behaviour change when on holiday in a place like the LakeDistrict. (Community Group)

When asked to define sustainability in the context of the LDNP, all the stakeholdersmention the need for a balance between social, economic and environmental agendas.Similarly, when asked to define community in the same context, the stakeholdersmention the economic sectors, social residential settlements and communities of interest.Clearly, sustainability is considered an essential component of any energy future, but inthe LDNP, its importance and impact seem to be multiplied by the nature and value ofthe landscape. The “low-carbon Lake District” report (Willis 2008) rallies stakeholdersto use the Lakeland brand to encourage “green” development and tourism. If LakelandCRE schemes can contribute to that cause, then their impact in promoting sustainable life-styles 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 studieson 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 timeand 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 eachproject, but this is only speculation by the authors and cannot be proved within the confinesof this study. Interestingly, public, private and community groups all played important roles

12 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

in the case studies, proving that all three key stakeholder groups are important in coordinat-ing and catalysing CRE schemes. The research suggests that all stakeholder groups knowthe true value of CRE schemes. Local people need the mechanisms and means to share thisknowledge 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 anidea of how representative the case studies are. A more extensive set of case studies

Table 1. Case studies of local CRE schemes.

Case 1: A hydroelectric schemeon the River Greta

Case 2: An air source heatingscheme in High Wray village

hallCase 3: A wood fuel boilerscheme in Grizedale Forest

In early 2010, floodsruined plans to builda hydroelectric scheme onthe River Greta nearKeswick. The damageincreased capital costs by25%, significantly reducingthe overall return on theinvestment. The scheme wasabandoned

High Wray village hall hasthermal insulation, doubleglazing and an air sourceheat pump. National EnergyAction helpedthe community conductan energy audit andVoluntary Action Cumbriahelped them to apply forfunding

The Forestry Commission uses awood fuel boiler to heat its1300 m2 visitor centre inGriezdale Forest. In total, 300m3 of wood chips are burntannually. The boiler is currentlypowered by a diesel engine, butmeasures are being taken toinvestigate the feasibility of alocal hydroelectric scheme

Feasibility and design studieshad been carried out andpaid for by the LDNPA’sSustainable DevelopmentFund and Keswick’sneighbourhood forum toascertain potentialenergy capacity, financialreturn and constructioncosts. The schemehad received the full backingof the wider community andlocal politicians

A 94-year-old (the onlyavailable member of thecommunity with the skillsrequired) applied for funds.Without this highly skilledretiree and others, the projectwould not have had access tothe funding streams andvolunteers it did

Despite failure, the communitylearnt a lot about CRE. Thereare no plans to rescue thework that has already beenconducted and most of themoney, time and effort spenthas gone to waste

The building’s heating systemhad to be upgraded to installthe pump, delaying thescheme. The low-carbonheat produced and savedenergy, significantlyreducing the hall’s heatingbills but increasingelectricity consumption

Five years on, the communityneed an upgrade. The pumpis too loud and energy-hungry. The communitycannot help but think thatthere may have been other,more appropriate,sustainable energy solutionsto their energy needs

The High Wray communityshare their experiences withother community groups ona regular basis, offering “teaand tour”. Who knows howmany schemes have beendeveloped as a direct resultof the High Wraycommunity?

The FC’s expertise, itsfundraising abilities andlogistical resources havemade the project a realsuccess. Wood fuel schemesin north Yorkshire andNorthumberland wereconsulted to ensure that thechallenges could be predictedand planned for. Planningpermissions and permits wereeasier to obtain, given the factthat the Forestry Commissionowned the land

Transportation, a commonsource of carbon in wood fuelschemes, is minimised by anestablished supply chain.Commercial managementand harvesting operationslocated less than a mile away

The facility has done a lot topromote the importance andbenefits of sustainableenergy. Visitors to the centrecan see and read about thewood fuel boiler.Representatives from otherbusinesses have toured thefacility in an effort to followsuit

Local Environment 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

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

We need a one-stop-shop; a place where we can get all the information we need and feelconfident 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 principaldevelopers and experts owned the land. The same CRE scheme enjoyed a network ofexperienced contacts that were able to offer advice. Should local authorities wish topromote CRE schemes in the future, audits of their own land might unearth similarassets and opportunities.

Communities are made-up of “laymen” unaware of all their natural assets. They’re vulnerableto taking the wrong advice from specialist developers and neglect more appropriatetechnologies. (workshop delegate)

None of the three CRE schemes were perfectly suited to their locale and few alternativesseem to have been seriously considered. If expertise, funds and resources were consolidatedand 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 forthem discover and deliver the alternatives that maximise sustainable development (CAGConsultants 2010).

Prime settlements and sectors

Two broad suggestions are definable from the stakeholders’ opinions on the prime settle-ments 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 gridsuffering from fuel poverty.

Big hotels, schools, outdoor centres and B&Bs, visited by thousands annually, are prime spotsfor inspiring, exemplar projects. (Community Group)

(1) CRE schemes in large, visible schools, hotels and B&Bs. Public places offer theadded 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 CREplans and champions. Here, the authors summarise the merits of the CRE plans andchampions, by cross-referencing to the literature and drawing on key themes identified inthe stakeholder interviews, case studies and workshop.

CRE plans could facilitate holistic, proactive planning by consolidating data sets onrenewable technologies and mapping them at appropriate scales using GIS (The Environ-ment Partnership Ltd 2009). The plan’s principal aim is to better inform local people andplan-makers at the appropriate levels of assessment. CRE plans have the potential to

14 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

isolate natural, economic and social resources, locating the settlements and sectors requir-ing help (The Environment Partnership Ltd 2009). It is clear from this research that withoutCRE plans, such opportunity and need could go unnoticed. Identifying the viable localesand positive alternatives gives local landowners, developers and authorities more reasonsto say yes to CRE schemes. The LDNPA hydro feasibility study (Inter Hydro Technology2009) has generated interest from new investors wishing to explore the potential ofdiscovered locales. The discovery of new sustainable synergies as a result of CRE plansmight attract new funding streams, leading to more positive and proactive action.

Incorporating CRE plans into the planning process will likely improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of statutory assessments. Formally placed within the LDF alongside othersupplementary planning documents, at the interface between strategic and project-levelassessments, CRE plans could help to reduce impact assessment fatigue by integrating andfocusing resources, knowledge and effort (Hale 2010b). As formalised supplementary plan-ning documents, CRE plans could provide the necessary alternatives for truly flexible andcreative EIAs and SEAs. Such a contribution is likely to ensure that CRE assessmentsremain relevant and strategic, while appraising alternatives effectively and in a timely manner.

CRE champions could help to rally support and provide the resources, expertise andfunds to catalyse and coordinate local action. CRE champions work in partnership withexisting stakeholders to facilitate the exchange of data, skills and expertise and ensure thatcommunities have the resources and knowledge to make the choices required to developthe most valuable and appropriate energy alternatives. Without them, the LDNP and theUK 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 displayengaged and disengaged communities. CRE champions should then focus CRE campaignson the disengaged communities, lacking the time, skills and knowledge to invest. CREchampions can enable, engage, encourage and exemplify, empowering Lakelandcommunities 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 necessarycommunity trust and tolerance to catalyse and coordinate more CRE schemes.

Further research and a number of pilot tests will be required if the effectiveness ofboth CRE plans and champions is to be determined conclusively. Pilot projects shouldbe sufficiently different to help ensure that CRE plans and champions can be adapted fordifferent landscapes and communities.

The results reveal strong support for both solutions, but suggestions were made andhave been consolidated to form guiding principles. The guiding principles serve to highlightthe strong consensus between the views isolated in the literature review and those identifiedin the primary research. In order to corral CRE drivers and dissolve CRE barriers, CREplans and champions must:

. communicate and coordinate positive data sets on renewable capacity, opportunityand need;

. generate trust and innovation from the bottom-up and be transparent and flexible;

. base proactive and positive planning on clear, consistent and continuously implementedcriteria;

. explore and evaluate all energy alternatives, including both CRE and centralisedfacilities and

. remain flexible to encourage local innovation, creativity and the importation of newtechnologies.

Local Environment 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

“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 thatquestion their value do so only to emphasise the need for bottom-up, action-focusedpolicies. CRE plans and champions must, therefore, rise to the challenge by adhering tothe guiding principles.

The nature of the study area calls into question the value and appropriateness of theresearch outcomes in areas outside the LDNP. Pilot schemes and more research are requiredto support the findings and justify the adoption of CRE plans and champions throughoutBritain and abroad.

Wider implications of the research: “think globally, act locally”

To assess the true value and appropriateness of CRE plans and champions, the researchoutcomes must be set within a broader national and international context. It is importantto note that while this study has been conducted exclusively within the boundaries of aBritish National Park, the study’s main themes, outcomes and mechanisms could berelevant for other places, whether they be rural or urban, designated or undesignated, orin the UK or abroad.

Compared with local CRE schemes, it is harder, on a national scale, to achieve allthe principles of sustainability because the impacts are that much greater and morecomplex. This research has highlighted that, at the local level, sustainable develop-ment has the potential to be maximised and trade-offs minimised through the diversi-fication of renewable schemes. Ideally, all opportunities are exploited and all needsare met. Serviced with the right resources, given the appropriate national and inter-national exposure and schooled in holistic and strategic planning, local authoritiesand communities could have a national impact of international significance (Walkeret al. 2007).

The principal values of CRE schemes, local production and consumption, are part of thebroader national and international trends of localism. The coalition government’s Decentra-lisation and Localism Act 2011 laid out their plans for a “Big Society” into law. The Actaims to help to empower local authorities and communities to retain the local servicesand resources needed to complement national and international efforts for sustainabledevelopment.

CRE schemes are one of the many alternatives that champion decentralisation, localismand sustainable development. Other initiatives have proven to be effective, and it isimportant that CRE schemes work alongside other mechanisms designed to catalyse andcoordinate 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 andenergy security “street by street” (CAG Consultants 2010). Thanks to these initiatives,cavity wall insulation and double glazing are now increasingly common. Securing localsupply chains is important when securing sustainable futures. By bringing together keystakeholders, local partnerships can help to develop local supplies of renewable energy/fuel (CAG Consultants 2010). Some local authorities and communities are planning inte-grated and long-term sustainable visions (see e.g. Tibbalds 2009). This research hasclearly shown that CRE schemes can be vehicles for catalysing and coordinating sustain-able energy visions; however, CRE schemes might be more effective if they are part ofmore ambitious “Master Plans” and regional, national and even international initiatives

16 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

that design and champion sustainable societies, rather than just decentralised sustainableenergy 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 asignificant contribution towards their sustainable energy future. Planning restrictionsoften prevent the development of large renewable installations in these areas, so theirlocal communities must contribute using alternative, less invasive measures to preventcompromising environmental and social integrity. CRE schemes, planned strategicallyand coordinated holistically, empower communities to be part of positive sustainableenergy 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 reshapingenergy systems, a vehicle through which policy instruments can offer alternatives thatsimultaneously lower energy consumption and increase renewable energy production ina single locale.

In addition to the guiding principles for CRE plans and champions, the research ident-ified the following recommendations from the stakeholder interviews:

. existing CRE schemes should be audited to identify the engaged/disengaged commu-nities and prioritise their efforts more effectively;

. CRE schemes should locate where supply and demand are closest and opportunityand need greatest;

. CRE schemes should be primarily sited in public locales, such as schools, to maxi-mise community engagement and catalyse a sustainable “snowball effect”. Oncethe pilot schemes have the “ball” rolling, priority can be given to championingCRE schemes on a larger scale and isolating communities in need; and

. CRE schemes should be built around existing partnerships and policies to ensure thatnew actions do not duplicate efforts.

From an academic perspective, the research illustrates the value of multi-stakeholderengagement in focusing on the barriers to CRE schemes at the local level, an area poorlyresearched to date. By exploring CRE as a mechanism for planning and constructing asustainable energy future in the LDNP, this paper highlights the benefits of promotingcommunity participation beyond traditional community consultation in planning.

To be the “greenest government ever” (HM Government 2010), the coalition governmentmust practise good governance, providing local communities and authorities with clearer andbetter reasons to take on CRE schemes. Without area-based policies, plans, programmes andpartnerships to help communities directly, successful CRE schemes will be limited to thecommunities already able and willing to overcome current CRE barriers. The researchsuggests that, if implemented properly, CRE plans and champions could offer the commu-nities with the capacity and opportunity and need the chance to find local win–win solutionsto local, national and international energy issues, securing a sustainable energy future.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all those who had participated in the research.

Local Environment 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

ReferencesAdams, 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 4August 2010].

CAG Consultants, 2010. Power to our neighbourhoods: towards integrated local sustainable energysolutions – 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 OccasionalPaper 04/LMC/CEA. London: Imperial College.

Crawford, J. and French, W., 2008. A low-carbon future: spatial planning’s role in enhancingtechnological 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 environmentaldemocracy [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 tothe consultation on electricity and gas smart metering. London: The Stationary Office.

Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2010a. Renewable Heat Incentive: consultation on theproposed RHI financial support scheme. London: The Stationary Office.

Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2010b. Feed-in tariffs: government’s response to thesummer 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 renewableenergy projects in England and Wales [online]. Working Paper 2: Community Energy InitiativesProject. Available from: http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/cei/Downloads/PDW%20STP%20Working%20Paper%202.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2012].

Entec UK Ltd, 2008. Sustainability appraisal/strategic environmental assessment of the Lake Districtlocal 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 tooperationalise sustainability within a collaborative environment. In: Proceedings of the inter-national 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 February2011].

Hale, S., 2010a. Rethinking climate change strategy for national governments – climate change: thechallenge for social democracy [online]. Policy Network. Available from: http://www.policy-network.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].

18 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

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.landuse-pol.2009.09.017 [Accessed 4 August 2010].

Inter Hydro Technology, 2009. Scoping study for the Lake District National Park Authority intopotential 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 energyhave 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 theLake District National Park 2010–2015. Kendal: Lake District National Park Authority.

Local Government Association, 2009. From Kyoto to Kettering, Copenhagen to Croydon: localgovernment’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 July1985, pp. 40–48 (as amended).

Official Journal, 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on theassessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L 197, 21 July2001, pp. 30–37.

O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation ofsoftware [online]. Available from: www.oreillynet.com [Accessed 4 August 2010].

Partidario, M., et al., 2008. Sustainability assessment for agriculture scenarios in Europe’s mountainareas: lessons from six study areas. Environmental Management [online], 43, 144–165. Availablefrom: 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 energyprojects. 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: PalgraveMacmillan, 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 andUrban Design.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2010. What is goodgovernance [online]. Available from: http://www.unescap.org/huset/gg/governance.htm[Accessed 24 February 2012].

Local Environment 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2

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 4August 2010].

Walker, G., 2008b. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energyproduction 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 community-based 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 4August 2010].

Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications, 219.

20 J. Allen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Impe

rial

Col

lege

Lon

don

Lib

rary

] at

08:

28 1

2 M

arch

201

2