2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring landowners’ post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some scholarship dismisses explanations of this localized opposition as "NIMBY" syndrome, as this theory is empirically inconsistent and oversimplified (Wolsink, 2000;Devine-Wright, 2005. More recent literature characterizes localized opposition to RE development as a nuanced and complex social response, demonstrating that variation in support and opposition towards a specific project is influenced by a broad range of demographic (e.g., Firestone & Kempton, 2007;Greenberg, 2009), contextual (e.g., Wolsink, 2000;Warren & McFadyen, 2010), and socio-psychological factors (e.g., Firestone et al, 2015;Boyd & Paveglio, 2015;Mills et al, 2019), rather than mere proximity as the NIMBY theory suggests.…”
Section: Previous Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some scholarship dismisses explanations of this localized opposition as "NIMBY" syndrome, as this theory is empirically inconsistent and oversimplified (Wolsink, 2000;Devine-Wright, 2005. More recent literature characterizes localized opposition to RE development as a nuanced and complex social response, demonstrating that variation in support and opposition towards a specific project is influenced by a broad range of demographic (e.g., Firestone & Kempton, 2007;Greenberg, 2009), contextual (e.g., Wolsink, 2000;Warren & McFadyen, 2010), and socio-psychological factors (e.g., Firestone et al, 2015;Boyd & Paveglio, 2015;Mills et al, 2019), rather than mere proximity as the NIMBY theory suggests.…”
Section: Previous Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Larson & Krannich (2007) detail alternative predictors of attitudes towards RE development, identifying individual beliefs about opportunities and threats related to context-specific proposals as having implications on support for a local project (Gramling & Freudenburg, 1992). Other researchers demonstrate social acceptance of RE is a function of community perceptions related to procedural justice, public participation, and fairness in the planning process (Gross, 2007;Jacquet, 2015;Mills et al, 2019;Adesanya, 2021). Socio-economic opportunities and threats are also important factors that shape public perceptions about RE development (Ansolabehere & Konisky, 2009).…”
Section: Previous Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the general public is broadly supportive of wind power, wind turbines are often met with strong local resistance. Overall, researchers have come to agree that local acceptance of wind turbines, beyond the project phase, hinges on a number of community-specific factors pertaining to procedural justice (Simcock 2016), distributional justice (Larson and Krannich 2016), and trust in energy development processes (Fast and Mabee 2015;Mills et al 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beyond impacts on property owners, several studies examine local factors that may affect the community-level acceptance of wind power developments. The compensation of landowners, while constituting a positive economic benefit, can create perceptions of unfairness or distributional injustice (Fast et al 2016;Baxter et al 2013) that may contribute to intracommunity conflicts with landowners as the economic benefits and negative externalities of wind power are spatially segregated (Mills et al 2019;Meyerhoff et al 2010). Risk stemming from community and/or rural-urban conflicts have motivated investigations into different forms of community level compensation ranging from direct payments to developer-led investments in community infrastructure or offsetting electricity costs (Baxter et al 2013;Groth and Vogt 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A second, more recent stream of work, emphasizes project-specific factors such as the details of the project itself (e.g., location, integration into the landscape, and compensation to landowners) [33, 9], beliefs about the fairness of the siting process [34], and perceptions of risk [13] and benefits [9, 35] related to the project. Project details could be important because they reveal possible environmental, economic, aesthetic, or social impacts [7, 36, 12, 19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%