Introduction

‘Yes or no to renewables?’ is a question facing local places, communities, cities and regions anticipating a renewable-energy transition. A transition towards renewable energy is one important pillar of the energy transition, which can be conceived as a process towards a sustainable energy generation. A renewable-energy transition induces not only a long-term structural change in energy systems, but rather a reconfiguration of current spatial patterns of economic and social activity (Bridge et al. 2013). Recent research has highlighted that energy transition is economically and technical feasible, but rather a transformative and socio-cultural challenge (IPCC 2011; Teske et al. 2015; Field 2015). This challenge involves social transformations and processes, such as the planning of renewable energy projects, the acceptance of place changes and the adoption of technologies. Thus, the importance of citizens and communities for a sustainable and successful energy transition has been increasingly recognised in public and political debates (HM Government 2010; Ethikkommission 2011; DECC 2014a). Considering the different geographies of energy transition (Bridge et al. 2013), here, we investigate peoples’ perceived impacts of a renewable-energy transition based on community-based renewables, such as wind farms, solar panels and biogas plants.

Community renewable energy

Over the last years, the term community renewable energy, or community renewables, has gained strong attention in research and policy. The term has been used to define small-scale and local renewable energy-generating social groups, which hold high degrees of project ownership and collective benefits (Walker and Cass 2007; Seyfang and Smith 2007; Walker and Devine-Wright 2008). Due to the diverse forms of community renewable-energy projects (including ownership structures such as energy initiatives and cooperatives), community renewables can be also conceived as a grassroots innovation for community-led and socially acceptable solutions to promote sustainable energy generation (Seyfang and Smith 2007; Hargreaves et al. 2013). There is no common definition of community renewable energy, though Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) addressed in their research two dimensions defining its character: the process dimension, considering who develops and is involved in the project, and the outcome dimension, looking at the kind of benefits created and for whom.

In terms of process, recent research highlighted the importance of place meanings and attachments (Manzo and Perkins 2006; Devine-Wright 2011; Devine-Wright and Howes 2010) and of trustworthy locally embedded entrepreneurs (Walker et al. 2010; Süsser et al. 2017) for the acceptance and participation in projects. In addition, financial support mechanisms, a more localised and participatory development process and opportunities for local ownership were found to be essential to increase awareness and acceptance (Walker and Cass 2007; Rogers et al. 2008; Walker et al. 2014) and to boost support and deployment of renewable-energy technologies (Toke et al. 2008; Gormally et al. 2014; Bauwens et al. 2016). Regarding the outcome of projects, the success in generating community benefits is found to be dependent on the local involvement of people (Walker and Devine-Wright 2008; Feldman and Kogler 2010), the capacities of key local entrepreneurs (van der Horst 2008) and the community control of projects (Aitken 2010; Cowell et al. 2011). Furthermore, a fair process and distribution of community benefits have been identified to impact the acceptance of projects (Gross 2007; Cowell et al. 2011; Walker et al. 2014).

The available scientific literature, thus, shows that there is a considerable diversity in drivers, motives and barriers towards community renewable energy (e.g., Walker 2008; Toke et al. 2008; Bauwens et al. 2016). Here, we focus on the outcome dimension by asking what kind of local benefits but also non-benefits and challenges are created by renewable-energy projects in local places and communities. And what does it imply for the overall assessment of existing community-based projects?

Community transition

‘I am on the sunny side, on the windy side, in sense of the sunny side’, said one interviewee of our study based in North Frisia, Germany. In the framework of this study, we investigate the ‘community transition’, which we conceptualise as the change in the social fabric of communities induced by an energy transition. Although communities define and shape places through the implementation of renewables, they are themselves defined by places and thus also affected by the outcome of the development of community-based renewables (Giuliani 2003; Feldman 2014). Community transition thus involves benefits—sunny and windy sides of the energy transition—as well as the challenges and disadvantages—the shady sides.

Community benefits and challenges

The community benefits of local renewable-energy projects have been of increasing interest over the past decade(s) in the scientific literature and in politics, especially in relation to wind farm projects, because of their potential to increase local acceptability, to mitigate conflicts around projects and to enhance opportunities for regional development (Wolsink 2007; CSE 2009; Munday et al. 2011; Cowell et al. 2011; Walker et al. 2014).

So far, a number of empirical studies have investigated opportunities underlying a community-based energy generation mainly by focusing on specific environmental, social or economic benefits (e.g., Cass et al. 2010; Walker et al. 2014). Six common categories of benefits are: community ownership (some form of shares), community benefit fund (money provided by the developer), in-kind benefits (enhancement to local infrastructure, facilities and environment), local contracting (local employment during construction and operation), environmental mitigation and enhancement, and involvement in the development process (form of connection activity) (see Cass et al. 2010; Munday et al. 2011; Cowell et al. 2011; Bristow et al. 2012). Disadvantageous impacts and challenges of community renewables have been largely neglected, except some studies which found negative environmental impacts, social conflicts and difficulties in project development (Rogers et al. 2008; Aitken 2010; Baxter et al. 2013).

Due to the current political relevance of community renewables and the availability of applied projects conducted by or for political bodies or associations, we also reviewed non-peer-reviewed reports to identify community benefits and challenges discussed. In German reports, a strong focus on regional added-value, such as local tax incomes, incomes of companies and long-term employment due to renewables was found (Hirschl et al. 2010; Prognos 2015; IZES 2015; AEE 2015). In the UK literature, four main categories of community benefit could be identified in the context of wind-energy development: local or community ownership, community funds, benefits in-kind and local contracting (CSE 2009; Southern Uplands Partnership 2011; BiGGAR Economics 2012; Scottish Government 2013; DECC 2014b). Most of the reports used statistical input–output data for the assessment, except the study by IZES (2015), which is based on a literature review and expert interviews.

Overall, a strong attention of community benefits as payments to communities became apparent (e.g., Munday et al. 2011; Baxter et al. 2013; Walker et al. 2014), while interactions with social and environmental benefits have been rarely addressed so far. Recent studies (e.g. Munday et al. 2011; Walker et al. 2014) furthermore mainly consider hypothetically expected or potential community benefits and not experienced benefits. However, there are indications that public perceptions, attitudes and the acceptance of renewables change through the planning and development process (Wolsink 2007; Aitken 2010; Devine-Wright 2011), which might be caused by differences between expected and experienced outcomes of renewable-energy projects. Thus, it must be carefully considered how community benefits are portrayed and perceived (Walker et al. 2014), but also which disadvantageous impacts emerge and how those are perceived. Despite the large discussion about visual environmental impacts, non-benefits and challenges on communal life induced by developed renewable energy projects have been hardly assessed so far. Hence, ‘grounded’ research is needed that explores the complex and social nature of both benefits and challenges of community renewables commonly perceived and assessed by people who (have) experience(d) a local renewable-energy transition. This paper addresses this research gap by investigating people’s place-based perspectives on experienced renewable-energy technologies and induced community-transition.

Research approach and aim

Recent literature highlighted that a better understanding of the places of energy transitions is necessary (e.g., Devine-Wright 2011; Howells and Bessant 2012). Thus, we devoted special attention to local places and communities as spatial and analytical units. In order to do so, we undertook quantitative and qualitative research in ‘communities of place’ in the case study area of North Frisia (Germany) to investigate people’s opinions about the physical (re)shaping and the social transformation induced by ‘communities of interest’ in renewables (Seyfang et al. 2013). The main aim was to explore how renewables are perceived in people’s local places, and how different benefits and challenges caused by their local implementation are intertwined and considered against each other. Consequently, we aimed to analyse how renewable energies are embedded in the broader social system and what this embeddedness implies for community structures and dynamics. The main research questions were: (1), how do people perceive community-based renewables in their local place and community? And (2), how do people assess the community-transition induced by community-based renewable energy generation? The paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 introduces the case study area and Sect. 3 the methods applied. Section 4 presents the empirical findings, before in Sect. 5 the results are discussed. Finally, Sect. 6 provides conclusions and some policy recommendations.

Case study background

Germany has become well known for declaring the Energiewende (energy transition). Since the beginning of the century, Germany has experienced a strong diffusion of renewable-energy technologies, which was politically encouraged by the introduction of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz) (EEG 2000). Almost 50% of the installed renewable-energy power in Germany is owned by citizens as private owners or through types of collective ownership (AEE 2014). Thus, the term citizen energy has been shaped by regionally located citizens (private individuals and commercial or agricultural sole traders) who became joint owners of wind or solar farms and undertook investments in locally managed wind turbines, solar installations, biogas plants and geothermal plants (IZES 2015).

The case study area of North Frisia (Schleswig–Holstein, Germany) has been chosen because it is an outstanding district for renewable-energy development, with self-sufficiency in renewable energy of about 350% (see Fig. 1) (DGS 2015). As illustrated in Fig. 1, North Frisia is the most northern district of Germany, located at the German North Sea Coast with about 162,865 inhabitants (Statistisches Amt für Hamburg und Schleswig–Holstein 2015). Over the last three decades, the mainland parts of North Frisia developed from a traditionally agricultural economic orientation into a largely energy-based economy. Developments of renewable-energy projects in North Frisia were typically locally, non-commercially motivated by local innovators, communities and locally based enterprises. People perceived local opportunities of community renewable-energy projects, which are based on an open involvement process and generate project revenue flows back to the communities. Thus, diverse community-based citizen’s energy projects have been implemented based on individual investments, e.g. private solar installations and biogas plants, or on collective investments in the form of private limited companies (GmbH & Co. KG.) and cooperatives (eG). Such projects socially define and materially shape many local places and communities in North Frisia today, including the seven communities where the empirical research in this study took place.

Fig. 1
figure 1

North Frisia and its community-based renewable-energy development

Full size image

Methods

To build a comprehensive picture of people’s perspectives on the existing renewable-energy technologies and on the related trade-offs between benefits and challenges of community-based renewables, three methods were employed: an analysis of regionally relevant literature, policy documents and online news; two series of semi-structured interviews; and a household’s survey.

First, the analysis of the literature, policy documents, online news and the 15 semi-structured interviews served as discovery with a fresh perspective. The literature review was essential for the empirical research because the historical, socio-economic and cultural context of the case study area had to be identified. Then, the semi-structured interviews in the energy community Reußenköge enriched the written evidence of place-based themes and important contextual aspects and secured comparability. The interview partners were selected according to their social function, profession, gender, age and profession to cover the social structure. The qualitative interview method was used to retrieve information about people’s embeddedness and perceptions of renewable-energy technologies. Furthermore, they enabled us to gain a reflexive assessment of why and how renewables have been developed and how it impacted on the physical and social fabric of the community. The interviews were analysed based on grounded theory (Charmaz 2014; Corbin and Strauss 2015), including the process of an open and axial coding of themes emerging during the process of analysis and the identification of analytical categories of community benefits and challenges. For the coding and categorisation of the interviews, the analysis software MAXQDA (VERBI 1989–2015) was used.

The standardised household survey in Reußenköge was designed as an expansion of the qualitative interviews and served as backdrop by providing a larger sample size and statistical data on what people are thinking and had been doing regarding renewables. Respondents were approached with questions like the following: To what extent do you agree on the following statements to renewable energy, e.g. renewables contribute to climate protection (see Fig. 2)? Or did you change your opinion about solar energy or wind energy? The survey was distributed to 110 households of which 51 returned the survey.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Perception of renewables. Household survey Reußenköge, 2014, N = 51. Asterisk indicates transition towards a sustainable energy supply based on renewable energy

Full size image

To compare, substantiate and extend the previous findings of the interviews and the survey in Reußenköge, a second round of interviews was done consisting of eight expert interviews in six other energy communities in North Frisia and with politicians. The interview partners included two local entrepreneurs of renewable-energy companies, two mayors who had to face local resistance upfront the implementation of community projects, a nature conservationist and three politicians from local and regional government. To better understand the motives and impacts of community renewable energy, the interviews addressed questions on local activities to cope with climate change and an assessment of the (non)development of renewables in the specific municipality and also the federal state of Schleswig–Holstein in general. The results of the interviews were compared with and lead to a completion of the picture of the analytical categories of community benefits and challenges based on the first round of interviews.

Empirical findings

The empirical findings of the analysis are based on the standardised household survey in Reußenköge (n = 51; references refer to SR) and semi-structured interviews in Reußenköge (references refer to IR) as well as North Frisia and Kiel (references refer to IN; # = number of Interview, lines XX–XX, interviews translated from German by the authors). Two perspectives of community renewables were examined: (1) community benefits of renewables and (2) community challenges involved.

Benefits of community renewables

According to our analysis of the interviews, community benefits can be distinguished in four main interlinked analytical categories: environmental, social, economic and planning. These categories were found in all the interviews and further structured in sub-categories permeating the process of renewables-driven community transition.

Environmental benefits

Generally renewable-energy technologies such as photovoltaic, windmills, biogas and geothermics, are perceived as clean energy sources, which contribute to climate-change mitigation. One interviewee said:

[W]e try to do climate-friendly energy generation with all our windmills. So, I think, we make quite a good contribution, and there are not only windmills, but also solar panels and biogas (IR_#9:67-68).

‘We try’ expresses peoples’ perceived collective and local contribution to mitigate climate change, which is also reflected in the households survey where almost 80% the households in Reußenköge ‘strongly’ agreed, and the rest ‘rather’ agreed that renewables contribute to climate protection. Approximately 88% of the households in Reußenköge, furthermore, ‘strongly’ agreed that renewable energy is important for the energy transition (Fig. 2).

Also, I can say only that we try to build many photovoltaic plants and to turn some windmills in order to maybe avoid that a coal power plant is running somewhere, um… this would serve the environment a bit (IN_#6:182-186).

This quotation underlines the potential of renewable-energy transition to phase out coal as an energy source and thus, to enhance the environment. Considering alternatives to renewables, interviewees were clearly averse to nuclear, coal, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Schleswig–Holstein.

Social benefits

The social system was perceived to benefit significantly from community renewables. First, community renewables created much community support and acceptance for local energy transition. People were emphasizing on the supportive attitude towards renewables in local municipalities, which was also well represented in the survey, where approximately 70% of the people ‘strongly’ agreed that renewables are socially acceptable (Fig. 2). Surprising and in contrast to some public debates, almost 80% of the surveyed households ‘strongly’ or ‘rather’ agreed that electricity grids are socially acceptable. Interviewees highlighted that the high level of social acceptance is rooted in the engagement of citizens, the creation of awareness for the necessity of measures, grounded trust-building and municipal support. In terms of the latter, about 80% of the survey respondents ‘strongly’ or ‘rather’ agreed on the importance of municipal support for the investment in wind farms, and about 40% ‘strongly’ or ‘rather’ agreed in the case of solar panels (Fig. 3). The development of wind energy was even described as a community movement:

Till then, we had seven or eight mills standing behind the farms, like as I had. There were also others here, or others who also started. And there were so many plans till then that there would have been growth in the ranks. And this was the hour of birth for the community wind-farm movement in Reußenköge (IR_#8:54-57).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Assessment of aspects related to the investment in renewables. Household survey Reußenköge, 2014, N = 51. EEG Renewable Energy Sources Act

Full size image

The interviews reveal that the development of renewables has increased the communal spirit and cohesiveness between the community members. Through community-based energy projects, people had to work together and exchange more than before:

[The interest in community wind farms] is also a brick, also if it is partially based on the material. But it is a brick, which has also changed the social structure. And overall, cooperation has improved. It was before more individual and now it is more a togetherness’ (IR_#7:37-40).

The brick symbolises here an accepted, collectively-used module to create something. Hence, this collectively-shared brick is perceived as the driving force of a community wind farm transforming individualism into collective individualism, facilitating common interest and cooperation in renewables.

Community renewables furthermore created social stability and diversity. Community revenues of renewables have enhanced the social life and decreased financial threats: ‘Without the renewable energy it would look quite different here’ (IN_#6:307-308). The problems for non-renewable rural municipalities, as described by one interviewee, are ‘no jobs, no money, drug problems and [the communities] die out’ (IN_#2:784). Community renewables are perceived as an opportunity to stop the outmigration of young people and provide social support in rural areas, which are often confronted with low job prospects and demographic change. Community-based renewables are perceived to counteract this trend by creating local and regional employment and economic security for local farmers. Furthermore, renewables even hold the potential to make municipalities more ‘attractive for other people’, which may even increase the social diversity through the diverse jobs practised and the arrival of non-agriculturalists in the municipality.

Because ‘[m]any [municipalities] try to do something’ (IR_#9:190), community renewables can furthermore enable social support for education and to families and seniors. Families, for example, can indirectly financially benefit from a good budgetary situation of communities—the nest egg due to wind power. Beyond that, locally-based companies provided or supported educational institutions and programmes: ‘[…] construction project with schools, and it involves warm water preparation via the sun; we have just built a big project with a school together’ (NF_#6:464-466). Such cooperation creates awareness for renewables and early interest in renewables from young people.

Hand-in-hand with social stability, municipalities are also able to benefit from prosperity with good local infrastructure. Interviewees cited investment in facilities, such as community halls, schools or swimming pools, facilitation of broadband internet expansion, and transportation, such as maintaining streets, building bicycle lanes and setting up charging stations, which ‘have positive impacts, certainly, on village live’ (IN_#7:500-501). Community renewables therefore hold a common benefit, which contributes to the stabilisation of the social structures and the social exchange:

Mainly older people do live here in the centre of the place, and they were really happy that we do now have lighting all night here in the place. But we could [only] implement it with [renewables]. […] And the community hall is also such a thing, where we have created a meeting point for the municipality, and otherwise it would not have been possible (IN_#8:399-402).

Last, interviewees assigned the role of a model region of renewables to North Frisia and North Frisian municipalities. People were proud of their front-running and pioneering role in regional energy generation. The importance of local anchoring and pioneering was highlighted by one interviewee: ‘And if not here, then nowhere, I would say. We can become a good flagship, I believe, yes’ (IR_#15:324-325).

Economic aspects

In addition to the (socio-)economic benefits within communities already indicated, North Frisia has been assessed as an economically valuable location for decentralised energy generation. People valued the local, decentralised energy generation for a cheap price, but moreover of ‘supply[ing] it to somebody’ (IR_#15:301). This valuation exhibits the supra-regional importance of renewable-energy generation from place to place.

Considering the economic benefits for many rural municipalities, said one interviewee, ‘[they] have no money, and you can see that they try to throw the sheet anchor by building a community wind farm. Because a community wind farm is sustainable, also the only demonstrable instrument, which can diminish the threat to the financial future, because [the municipality] gets the trade tax and because the citizens get their payouts, and because the farmers get their rent’ (IN_#5:107-112). Individual households are found to economically benefit from the distribution of windmill profits, lease receipts, compensation, and energy cost savings. All citizens who invested collectively in windmills or individually in other renewables, such as photovoltaic and biogas, were able to increase their income. Sixty-one percent of the surveyed households in Reußenköge ‘strongly’ agreed that they benefit personally from wind energy, while 67% ‘strongly’ agreed that wind energy is an important source of income. In contrast, the importance of solar energy was comparably low (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Assessment of community-based renewable energy. Household survey Reußenköge, 2014, N = 51 F

Full size image

Interviewees furthermore valued collective economic benefits generated—in particular by wind energy—directly or indirectly to all members of the municipality:

And the idea of community wind farms is super. It implies that, for example, all members of the municipality profit from the windmills, and not individuals (IR_#1:301-303).

Almost 60% of the surveyed households ‘strongly’ agreed that wind energy has a community benefit, whilst in case of solar energy approximately 18% ‘strongly’ agreed and a further 43% ‘rather’ agreed (Fig. 4). This community benefit was mainly generated through increased communal taxes. These land and trade taxes flow in the municipal fund, and thus, stay locally where the farm is located. Community foundations were created, led by local citizens, such as the mayor and heads of associations, which provide a long-term financial basis for municipal investments and beyond, with a strong focus on community benefits. In cases where neighbouring municipalities were not able to construct own wind farms, voluntary compensation payments were introduced to compensate for the social impacts in the neighbouring community, e.g. when ‘the neighbour looks on it’ (IN_#7:526). Thus, payments provide a system of financial equity between municipalities and a flow of benefits beyond one community.

Additional community and regional added values are provided by employment effects resulting in reinvestment. One interviewee stated that the regional economy is boosted if the ‘money must just stay in the region, and it mustn’t go to the big business companies’ (IR_#1:312-313). In addition to regional reinvestment, neighbouring municipalities also benefit from the district and federal shares provided by the wind energy communities: ‘[…] we are not independent from our environment; often only 25% stay in the municipality and the other 75% are district and federal shares, which go to the neighbouring municipalities’ (IN_#5:474-477). People assessed this sharing as something which they feel proud of. The interviewees furthermore expressed community renewables as new economic sector:

[Renewables and especially] wind energy have much significance…um, economically for many companies. There are many companies that can exist only through wind power (IR_#1:199-201).

Community renewables enable new companies in the renewable-energy business. Many entrepreneurs described that they consciously decided to settle their company in a local municipality ‘because [they] want to show that you can also provide attractive and interesting jobs away from cities’. (IN_#8:111-113). This statement indicates a strong attachment of people to their local place. Local employment opportunities have been assessed as highly relevant for rural areas with low prospects:

These employment effects. We always talk about resources and about income and about creating awareness, and I think it comes to show that alone the wind branch in Germany….has now created about 140.000 jobs (IN_#5:706-709).

Lastly, the interviewees revealed that tourism seems to be not negatively affected by renewables but rather offers potential to tourism. However in some regions, particularly around touristic hot-spots, municipalities may have to decide to be either an energy community or a tourism community.

Planning benefits

To provide social and economic benefits, local participation in and local operation of community renewables has been assessed to be important. Participation implies not only financial outcomes, but also participation in the planning process, because it enables people to ‘bring in [their] private interests’ (IR_#12:87-88), and ‘it maintains a level of local control. You also want to have a say’ (IN_#2:1083-1085). The survey found over 80% of people ‘strongly’ agreed on the importance of citizens being involved in planning of wind farms, and over 60% ‘strongly’ agreed in the case of solar panels (Fig. 3). An important component in this context is trust in the participating wind farm owners. Approximately 63% of the surveyed households ‘strongly’ agreed and a further 27% ‘rather’ agreed on the importance of trust. Besides the continuously open participatory planning approach of municipally based projects, inter-municipal cooperation and participation opportunities were valued highly. Such projects were implemented in cases where neighbouring municipalities might have been affected by visual impacts, or where place-based projects could be not implemented in a particular municipality due to (often nature conservation related) restrictions. Implementing the concept of community renewables has been assessed as highly beneficial for municipalities and other regions: ‘It shows me that overall we hit the bull’s eye with the concept of citizen’s participation’ (IN_#8:337-338). The collective and participatory planning approach ‘is strongly driven by […] local companies, who work on that and plan it. And they also employ many’ (IR_#13:173-174). Locally grounded planning companies also share their expertise and offer the implementation of existing concepts in other regions, which exhibits a supra-regional benefit for the concept of community renewables.

Challenges of community renewables

Besides the perceived local and regional benefits of community renewables, the analysis of the interviews revealed challenges and negative impacts caused by their introduction. Five interlinked analytical categories could be found in all interviews: environmental, physical, social, economic, political and planning challenges.

Environmental impacts

The development of renewables is perceived to induce a (re)shaping of the landscape. Considering the impacts of visuals and noise as well as land use changes, various renewable energy sources have been assessed differently. The most notable visual impacts have been perceived in wind turbines:

Wind turbines don’t make so much fun, but they are…um…there. You have to accept it. Also, you have to go a bit closer to the coast to perceive them not as disturbing. Um…if you go further away, the more is there a wall, which you can see there (IN_#7:381-385).

This quotation illustrates aversion to wind turbines, their disturbance of a ‘clear’ and ‘open’ view, and the perceived need to live with the impacts. The household survey found a broadly divided opinion of landscape changes (Fig. 4). In the survey, significant amount of people—27% for onshore and 29% for offshore—‘partially’ agreed on a negative image of the landscape. The destruction has been assessed as higher in the case of wind turbines both offshore and onshore than in comparison to solar panels on the roof and solar farms. The impacts of solar farms have been assessed as higher compared to installations on roofs, which relates to the higher demand of space, and their location sometimes even on fertile land. Biogas has been assessed to have the highest impacts: ‘they are a bit of a thorn in my eye, these things, because they eat a lot of land and much diesel’ (IN_#6:442-443). The phrase ‘they eat a lot of land’ refers to the land demand for cultivated biomass monocultures, such as corn and ‘quite much diesel’ for the associated transportation of biomass. It implies that landscape changes are intertwined with structural changes in agriculture. Community renewables are perceived and expected to (re)shape current and future places as one interviewee summarised: ‘now there is a change and everything needs to be reshaped. There are certainly differences and bottlenecks or something like that here, anytime it is all reshaped here, and then everybody will habituate to that’ (IR_#10:333-336). The quotation refers to the time dimension that people may get used to changes creating irritation today and perceptions may also change over time.

Physical challenges

Physical challenges in the operation of different kinds of renewables were identified. While people perceive it as problem that wind power today is not able to provide the basic load, biogas may has the potential to provide this basic load: ‘[…] the hope with biogas is still that it is something that also operates if no wind is blowing and no sun is shining. Also, that you have a bit of basic load, yes’ (IN_#8:875-878). Although an intelligent mix of different renewables seems to be uncertain and in the future, electricity storage and transport via grids are perceived as essential measures for dealing with underproduction and peaks of overproduction. A strong link was made between local concerns about overproduction and cross-border trading of electricity. Locally, people perceived it as an urgent theme ‘to approach a storage medium for wind-power-generated electricity’ (IR_#9:132). Beyond the locality, electricity transportation and grid expansion are assessed as urgent measures, for example through a European network of smart grids optimising generation and trade beyond borders.

Social challenges

Energy generation in local places causes acceptance of or opposition to projects, which is influenced by the perceived impacts on the social life. Visual and noise effects have been assessed to be higher for windmills than for solar panels:

It is just a fact that a windmill has a higher impact on my social life than a solar panel. I look on it, I can hear it, I can see it, and it casts a shadow on the plate at the breakfast. It has a big impact (IR_#15:348-350).

Such impacts were found to be a palpable issue surrounding the development and expansion of wind turbines, and a reason for the continuous challenge of ‘citizens involvement and taking citizens serious who live there’ (IR_#14:53). Although decisions about projects on renewables are often based on a principal of majority rule in local councils, attention must be also given to opponents:

Then you try to react to arguments, and partially we also did that in a case where we constructed the turbine not 800 meters but 850 meters away, agreeing to [an objector’s] wish to do something (IN_#7:627-631).

This shows the importance of talking and negotiating with non-supporters to find compromises. Nevertheless, many regions in North Frisia are characterised by a high density of wind turbines, which created acceptance problems and protests, especially by so-called ‘foreigners’, people which have moved into the locality from outside. Acceptance seems to be highly intertwined with residency and ownership. The interviews revealed a bonding to wind turbines through involvement in planning and financial participation which may override visual and noise-related impacts: ‘[…] and you identify with your wind farms. [People] are part of it (the wind farm) and they are happy every day that they can hear the turbines’ (IN_#5:497-498).

Nevertheless, community renewables have been perceived to cause social splitting in municipalities between ‘wind supporters, the big beneficiaries, and wind opponents’ (IN_#5:609-611). This remark emphasises the discrepancy between benefits, on the one hand, and the social challenges caused by envy, social differentiation or even the perceived exclusion of people, on the other hand. The results reveal the challenge of meanness and the importance of respect and equality between people in order to secure long-term social cohesion.

Economic challenges

Economic challenges refer to distribution of monetary benefits as well as structural aspects. Interviewees mentioned that the agricultural change transformed agriculturalists into energy-culturalists, thus creating competition between energy farmers and traditional farmers: ‘renewable energy has brought censorship in agriculture’ (IN_#5:411-412). This censorship symbolises unequal profitability between farmers, causing a splitting in agriculture. The economic interests in renewables have, however, also led to overlapping interests:

Yes, a big problem […] I see in relation to overlapping business portfolios, which we have here. We have…um, the social structure we have is highly dominated by one power, and that is the wind energy. With the wind energy, people earn their money (IR_#15:36-38).

Thus, wind energy challenges not only the economy but also social relationships in communities. Challenges related to household’s economic benefits include the fair sharing of benefits among citizens. In the case of Reußenköge, interviewees disclosed that envy was caused by differences in the revenue earnings from the different wind farms. To decrease the differences between the individual wind farms, and thus, to increase cohesiveness, the six initial wind farms were merged into one big wind farm in 2015, after our interviews were done (Dirkshof, 2015).

Furthermore, collective economic benefits were perceived to be challenged by the outmigration of profiteers of wind energy because added value might be migrated to other areas too. Additionally, interviewees fear that the upcoming change in the political support scheme for renewables in 2017 to a bidding system will cause investments by and for big companies and thus may put social acceptance and community benefits at risk. A threat was seen in a shift from an energy transition made by locals and many small investors to an energy transition made by big companies and investors which are expected to benefit from the new support scheme. Renewables were moreover related to their economic affordability and electricity prices, showing differences between the different sources. Wind energy is seen as the cheapest form of renewables, while economic costs of photovoltaic energy are perceived as high. This might also explain the divided perspective on household financial burdens of renewables (Fig. 2).

Political and planning challenges

The energy transition is perceived by interviewees as political decision, challenged by uncertain and inconsistent energy policy and continuously manifested political support: ‘Back then, after the drama of Japan [the nuclear disaster of Fukushima], Frau Merkel—more or less alone—declared the energy transition. Anyone has followed that. And now, they do partially back-pedal’ (IR_#7:216-218). Even beyond that, one interviewee stated that ‘federal politics puts only obstacles in the way’ (IN_#2:1125). Hence, people demand support in terms of encouragement and incentives. The Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2000) was considered an important instrument for the development of community renewables in the past. In the survey, about 65% and 47% of the households ‘strongly’ agreed on the importance of incentives for wind energy and solar energy, respectively, through the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Fig. 3). Current changes in the EEG are perceived to result in difficult financial planning for new projects: ‘[…] and that also affects the financing of new projects—it is not calculable anymore. And if it has to work without rewards in the future, then community wind farms will be hardly financeable’ (IR_#8:312-313). In contrast, big companies are perceived as the beneficiaries of national energy policy. Lobbyism has been assessed as one reason for the currently difficult political situation, because politicians seem to ‘be keen on the industry’ (IR_#13:95), too-much influenced by industry’s lobby groups and tend to neglect impacts on and acceptance of local communities.

Related to the future, interviews also revealed the importance of the planning law, because dealing with designated priority areas for renewables determines their future expansion. One interviewee mentioned the importance of recognition and support for rural areas in planning matters:

Yes, and they (politicians) should approach the […] rural community um… and act together with the rural community, which profits the rural areas, but which are also good for the climate and so […]. Without the rural areas, too much is done which is not accepted and that is not suitable (IN_#7:826-836).

Discussion: trade-off between benefits and challenges

The detailed exploration of peoples’ perceptions and assessment of community-based renewables lead to in-depth insights in community transition in North Frisian municipalities. Generally, people in the area perceive a change in the physical and social fabric of their local places and communities induced by the local introduction of renewable-energy technologies. This community-transition holds interwoven benefits and challenges, which could be categorised across five main analytical categories: (1) the perceived degree of (re)shaping of the coastal landscape, and of contributions to mitigate climate change and to enhance the environment; (2) the assessed level of social support, cohesiveness and social stability/splitting; (3) perceived economic added values and the catalyst function of community renewables for regional development; (4) the assessment of involvement in community renewables planning and of ownership; (5) the perceived degree of political support and local innovation. These categories are characterised by linked sub-categories of benefits and challenges affecting the overall assessment of community renewables (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Community benefits and community challenges of renewables for North Frisian municipalities, based on the interviews and on the household survey

Full size image

Environmental impacts are socially acceptable but this depends on technologies and community benefits

Our empirical findings prove that community renewables are perceived to cause visual and noise impacts and land-use changes, as indicated by other studies (Wolsink 2007; Rogers et al. 2008; Baxter et al. 2013). We found a generally high acceptance of such impacts, however, also indicated differences between renewable-energy technologies as described by Gormally et al. (2014). Solar panels on the roofs seem to impact the natural environment the least, whilst windmills were perceived to have a distant-perceivable visual impact. While Baxter et al. (2013) found that negative health outcomes strongly predict support/opposition to wind turbines, they seem to play almost no role in our study. Biogas has been assessed as having strong land-use impacts; therefore, the offsetting between environmental benefits and harm has been questioned. Nevertheless, adding to previous research (Rogers et al. 2008; Cowell et al. 2011; Bristow et al. 2012), we found that renewable energy has been generally assessed as the ‘cleanest’ alternative for energy production contributing to environmental enhancement and climate-change mitigation.

We furthermore found—as highlighted by Cowell et al. (2011)—an ex ante acceptance by people who were critically against landscape impacts, but who perceive clear social and collective economic benefits. The findings of our study indicate a habituation of people towards renewables and a bonding based on planning participation and ownership. Thus, people seem to accept, ‘get used to’ or even enjoy renewables in their environment when experiencing clear benefits and not just burdens or challenges.

Community renewables swing between social enhancement and social splitting

Previous studies (Rogers et al. 2008; Baxter et al. 2013) have indicated expected and perceived social impacts, between community enhancements and conflicts. Our research revealed high relevance of community-based renewables due to the diverse nature of social benefits generated. These benefits include community spirit and cohesiveness, social stability and social diversity. Participants in studies by Rogers et al. (2008) and Gormally et al. (2014) highlight that people expected strength of community and community spirit or more community collaboration. We found a strong identification for a common interest in and working together because of renewables. We could however also identify social challenges in line with other studies (e.g. Aitken 2010; Baxter et al. 2013), including how to deal with local conflicts, social splitting or exclusion, and also active opposition. Regarding the opposition, it must be noted that acceptance must be understood as a continuous process because the expansion of renewables requires a continuous local involvement of people in planning processes in order to secure acceptance and mitigate opposition.

In line with findings from Rogers et al. (2008), North Frisian municipalities perceive themselves as model communities. These communities can educate other communities, and implemented projects can serve as examples or best practice cases (Walker and Cass 2007; Rogers et al. 2008). Pioneering communities can offer advice, especially in situations where strong concerns related to project ownership, trust in developers and fairness of local benefits are found (e.g., Aitken 2010; Munday et al. 2011; Baxter et al. 2013). We could demonstrate the importance of a fair and community-driven siting process, which seems to outweigh expected concerns related to it (see also Baxter et al. 2013).

Economic benefits and challenges emerge at individual, community, regional, and super-regional levels

We showed tightly interwoven benefits of community-based renewables for individuals, communities, regions, and super-regions. Cowell et al. (2011) and Walker et al. (2014) highlighted the importance of ‘distribution justice’—a distribution of the outcome perceived as fair. Several projects identified that public concerns are related to fairness of benefit distribution (Wolsink 2007; Cowell et al. 2011; Gormally et al. 2014) and the attempt to create community benefits as bribes (Aitken 2010; Cass et al. 2010; Walker et al. 2014). In the view of most of our interviewees, benefits are generally fairly and collectively distributed in their community. This is particularly related to tax receipts, which provide a better financial situation to local municipalities and thus enable local financial support to families and enhancements to the local infrastructure. This tax receipt is comparable with the community fund in the UK, which has been perceived as highly important to community benefits (Aitken 2010). However, substantial differences in individual benefits became apparent between energy farmers—those who invested often in diverse forms of renewable-energy technologies—and traditional farmers—those who practice on non-energy-based agriculture.

Local employment opportunities were found to be important for communities and regions, by attracting young people to the area, as indicated in previous literature (e.g., Rogers et al. 2008; Cass et al. 2010; Munday et al. 2011). We could furthermore demonstrate that new economic sectors can contribute to establishment of new local companies and reduce outmigration of (often young and well-educated) residents, which also is a particular social challenge many rural areas are facing.

Community benefits need community participation and ownership

Our results clearly indicate close linkages of perceived community benefits with community participation and ownership. Participation in planning and in the development process of projects has been assessed as highly important for North Frisian municipalities, thereby underpinning the relevance of fairness of the overall process (Gormally et al. 2014). Early and active community involvement, which goes beyond purely financial incentives, seems to be important to not only spread information, but to create trust and acceptance, as confirmed by other studies (Aitken 2010; Rogers et al. 2012).

While in North Frisia, community ownership schemes already have a long tradition and are assessed as highly important, in the UK, an increasing awareness for importance and challenges of some form of shareholding were found (e.g., Cass et al. 2010; Aitken 2010; Cowell et al. 2011). Our interviewees were clearly in favour of local ownership, however, expect potentially negative impacts on community benefits if the profiteers do not live in the local communities anymore.

In our study the benefits of community control and participation have been considered as highly valuable for community members, whilst people in the UK expect benefits from involvement in community energy projects whether it is community-led or by other organisations (Rogers et al. 2008). Studies by Rogers et al. (2008) and Walker and Cass (2007) indicated a lack of recognition for opportunities of public participation in energy projects. This lack of recognition and experience with community-led projects might highlight the importance of learning from existing community based renewable-energy projects. However, as noted by other studies (Walker et al. 2010; Süsser et al. 2017), the social and geographic place aspects are crucial but differ, thus, place-based concepts and strategies need to be developed.

Continued political support and social and technical innovation are needed for sustaining community renewables

In line with Rogers et al. (2012) and Seyfang et al. (2013), our findings indicate that clear policy ambitions and support is perceived as highly relevant for the successful implementation and preservation of community renewable energy. North Frisian inhabitants currently perceive a decreasing support for local places and communities and increasing support for big electricity companies as particularly challenging for the continuation of community renewables.

Nevertheless, our findings exhibit a strong visionary view of people related to physical challenges associated with direct usage of electricity, basic load capacity, storage and electricity grids. Overcoming these local challenges has been assessed as important to securing long-term economic benefits for local municipalities. However, local places are ‘resource(s) of memories, experiences and creativity initiating and supporting innovative and entrepreneurial activities’ (Süsser et al. 2017:333). Social and technical innovation at local level, thus, seems to have the potential to drive required local developments forward (Seyfang and Smith 2007).

Community renewables hold the potential to enable a sustainable regional development

Our empirically grounded research made trade-offs between diverse benefits and challenges apparent. For most interviewees and participants of the household survey, benefits outweigh the negative impacts, resulting—similar to studies from Rogers et al. (2008) and Baxter et al. (2013)—in a high level of acceptance and local support for community renewables. However, what does this imply for the development of rural renewable-energy communities and regions?

The findings indicate an overall positive assessment of community renewables because diverse environmental, social, economic and planning opportunities and benefits can be brought directly or indirectly to local municipalities. ‘I am not a supplicant, but rather on the sunny side, on the windy side in the sense of the sunny side’ (IN_#5:479-480), expressed one interviewee. This common sentiment indicates that community renewables provide the possibility to address and counteract linked local social problems such as demographic change, lack of job prospects, outmigration of young people and insufficient local infrastructure. In fact, people experience that community renewables enable them to ‘construct’ the future of their local place and contributes to self-sustained, long-term regional development in rural areas. These findings contrast with Munday et al. (2011) who question local economic development outcomes in the UK. However the institutional and political framework in the UK differs significantly from Germany and Denmark for example.

As Seyfang and Smith (2007) argue, innovation and community action are two important strands for sustainable development. We found a significant potential for community renewable energy and related community actions to enable sustainable regional development. In order to catalyse regional development especially in rural areas, it is however required to distribute local benefits to the affected communities through open community participation and community ownership.

Conclusion and policy recommendations

With this study, we provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the complex nature of local perceptions and assessment of implemented community renewable-energy projects. Based on a household survey in one community and expert interviews with demographically diverse people in seven North Frisian municipalities, we could demonstrate that community-based renewable-energy transition causes a so defined community transition. Local people characterised this community transition by physical, environmental, social, economic, planning and political aspects, which benefit or challenge the communal life. The transferability of these positive and disadvantageous impacts into other regional or national contexts needs to be assessed in further case studies. However, the identified categories can provide an important starting point for a conceptual framework of the assessment of community-based renewable-energy projects. As far as we are aware of, such a framework is missing so far, but we see its potential for a better comparability of outcomes of community renewables in different institutional, political and socio-cultural contexts. Additionally, we identified differences between potential and experienced benefits and challenges of community-based renewables. Thus, similar to the study by Aitken (2010), further empirical research should be conducted that investigates perceptions pre-, in- and post-implementation. To explore the long-term opportunities of community renewables, especially for rural municipalities and regions, future research should analyse the potential of community renewables for providing sustainable solutions for regional development in rural areas.

Because community benefits are high on the political agenda but actual impacts of community renewables remain less understood, our findings provide important implications to communities, developers and governments: Community-owned and/or—led renewables can provide benefits to individuals, communities, and regions, if local involvement and fair allocation of benefits is guaranteed and local needs are acknowledged. The multifaceted layers of possible benefits should be, therefore, discussed within the local communities. However, also local challenges (and burdens) which are expected and can be caused by the community renewables need to be discussed and strategies developed to mitigate possible fears and problems before developing local projects. This place-based process is important to foster long-term acceptance and local participation/support for projects. The form and volume of community benefits generated depends however largely on the developer (Munday et al. 2011). Local developers usually have stronger local ties and community identification than developers from outside. Even though community benefits are voluntarily, (external) developers should recognise the values of engaging with local community members and of creating positive outcomes for the whole community. To create local benefits, developers should thus learn from existing community based projects. Finally, the power of community-owned and -led projects for creating environmental, social and economic values for places and communities deserves considerably increased attention in political decision making, in particular in relation to financial incentive schemes and rural regional development strategies.

In conclusion, our empirically grounded and analytically structured research demonstrates the multifaceted and interlinked individually, municipally and regionally experienced benefits and challenges induced by existing community renewable-energy projects. Three important insights emerge: First, community renewables can provide individual and collective benefits generated in and for local places and communities, which go beyond the directly ‘affected’ communities. Thus, community renewables and local rural development seem to be directly linked. Second, community renewables might cause local challenges and negative impacts, which must be encountered in order to provide long-term acceptance of and support for renewables. Third, community transition, thus, implies interwoven and offsetting beneficial and challenging aspects, especially a social and environmental (re)shaping of places, which create new social and economic structures and processes in rural areas. Such sunny and shady sides of community transition—as it has been described by interviewees—must be communicated and addressed in order to enable and retain positive, sustainable outcomes of community-based renewable energy projects.