Constarium
← Search

Data · dataset · 2026

Understanding coastal community attitudes towards the provision of offshore wind energy community benefit funds: an Irish case study

Listed in ZivaHub and Deakin Research Online and DMU Figshare — shown once because both records carry DOI 10.17034/32640243.v1

There is a lack of clarity regarding the motivations behind providing community benefit funds (CBFs) in the wind energy industry.

Description

Interpretations of the rationale range from benefit-sharing to compensation, bribery, or the assumption that CBFs improve community acceptance and expedite planning approval for renewable energy targets. The Irish government frames mandatory CBFs as increasing community participation and sharing renewable energy development benefits.

However, the efficacy of CBFs in resolving social acceptance issues that drive community opposition remains unclear, especially in offshore contexts. Previous CBF studies had conflicting findings - some claim CBFs empower disadvantaged communities (Baxamusa, 2008; Saito, 2012), while others criticise using them to secure planning consent (Campbell et al., 2000; Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015). Evidence also shows CBFs can divide communities by creating mistrust and contention (Macdonald et al., 2017), potentially impacting project acceptance negatively.

Read the rest (4 more)

Ireland’s recent mandatory CBF introduction through the Renewable Electricity Support Scheme (RESS), alongside mobilising the offshore wind industry, provides a timely case study to examine these complex issues. County Wicklow was chosen to study coastal community perceptions of offshore CBFs given the likely imminent development of two offshore wind farms off the coast.<br><br>This research aims to develop a holistic understanding of offshore CBFs perceptions across the three spheres of social acceptance: government, industry, and community.

Adopting a social constructionist approach enabled the exploration of not just why CBFs are utilised in the wind energy industry, but also how coastal communities view offshore CBFs. Initial insights into key CBF issues were gained through semi-structured interviews with representatives from the three spheres. Government and industry perceptions were further explored by analysing discursive practices relating to host communities and CBFs within energy policy.

Q-Methodology, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques, identified patterns of coastal community attitudes towards offshore CBFs using insights from their interviews. The case study reveals the heterogeneity of coastal community CBF perceptions, revealing four distinct viewpoints or Factors. Three Factors exhibit overall favourable CBF attitudes, albeit at varying positivity levels and founded on unique values, while one Factor revealed negativity towards offshore wind energy development and associated CBFs.

Key findings include evidence of (i) implicit power imbalances between the three acceptance spheres, (ii) the assumption by government and industry that CBFs increase community acceptance, and (iii) the need for extensive engagement with host communities to build trust and leave a positive CBF legacy. While it is crucial to build trust within communities, focusing on how CBF design influences acceptance without considering the wider power dynamics could be futile.<br>

Links

Where it is published

Catalogue records · 1

Topics

Provenance · 3 source records, 16 field assertions
SourceKeyLast seenRaw
ZivaHuboai:figshare.com:article/326402437 d agoJSON v1
Deakin Research Onlineoai:figshare.com:article/326402437 d agoJSON v1
DMU Figshareoai:figshare.com:article/326402437 d agoJSON v1
FieldAssertionExtractorEvidence
concepts[field].anzsrc:field:330405mapping · zivahub uct ac zavocabulary-mapper@1.0.0keywords['community engagement']
concepts[field].anzsrc:field:330405mapping · figshare dmu ac ukvocabulary-mapper@1.0.0keywords['community engagement']
concepts[field].anzsrc:field:330405mapping · dro deakin edu auvocabulary-mapper@1.0.0keywords['community engagement']
concepts[field].local:field:earth-environmentalmapping · dro deakin edu auconnector:dro_deakin_edu_au@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:earth-environmentalmapping · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:earth-environmentalmapping · figshare dmu ac ukconnector:figshare_dmu_ac_uk@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:energymapping · dro deakin edu auconnector:dro_deakin_edu_au@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:energymapping · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:energymapping · figshare dmu ac ukconnector:figshare_dmu_ac_uk@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:social-sciencemapping · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:social-sciencemapping · dro deakin edu auconnector:dro_deakin_edu_au@1.0.0
concepts[field].local:field:social-sciencemapping · figshare dmu ac ukconnector:figshare_dmu_ac_uk@1.0.0
descriptionsource · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0/metadata/dc/description
license_textsource · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0
publication_datesource · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0
titlesource · zivahub uct ac zaconnector:zivahub_uct_ac_za@1.0.0/metadata/dc/title