English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The energy and climate crises are driving renewable energy, but it is currently facing obstacles in leading countries. Balancing environmental, social and economic interests has become complex at the regional level due to spatial trade-offs in a contested space. To investigate stakeholder willingness to compromise on a joint ranking on wind and solar energy sites, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) planning support was explored. Using a two-part stakeholder survey, four groups were identified: ‘advocates’ who were satisfied with the site ranking (66%), ‘realists’ who were willing to compromise despite previous disagreement (13%), ‘dissenters’ not accepting (35%), and ‘dogmatists’ not engaging. Planning decisions and stakeholder engagement are underpinned by distinct attitudes towards the role of (democratic) planning and sustainable development. The use of trade-off analysis can ensure transparency and trace back stakeholder interests in making planning decisions. However, decision quality factors also need to be considered to ensure a thorough planning reflection.

Gridlock in compromise, or is multi-objective optimisation possible in renewable energy planning? A stakeholder analysis using scenario-MCDA