Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter?

Firestone, Jeremy; Kempton, Willett; Lilley, Meredith Blaydes; Samoteskul, Kateryna

doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.688658

Cited by 74 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A planning process perceived as "fair" can lead to greater toleration of the outcome, even if it does not fully satisfy all stakeholders (Firestone et al, 2012b), whereas processes perceived as "unfair" can result in conflict, damaged relationships, and divided communities (Fast et al, 2016). However, greater toleration is not necessarily synonymous with support or "successful coexistence" (Songsore & Buzzelli, 2014).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Planning Process Fairness and Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firestone et al (2012b) stress that NIMBY resistance may be a result of opposition, rather than an explanation of it. Moreover, the term is generally used pejoratively (Kempton et al, 2005).…”

Section: Limitations Of Previous North American Wind Acceptance Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Landowner compensation, however, is not a universally positive socioeconomic impact for individuals living near turbines. It may create perceptions of "winners" and "losers" (Firestone et al, 2012b) and increase intra-community conflict (Baxter et al, 2013;Walker et al, 2014b). Compensation can even be seen as a form of bribery (Gipe, 1995).…”

Section: Socioeconomic Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Baxter et al, 2013;Bidwell, 2013;Firestone & Kempton, 2007;Firestone et al, 2012b;Groothuis et al, 2008;Groth & Vogt, 2014;Olson-Hazboun et al, 2016;Pasqualetti & Butler, 1987;Petrova, 2014;Slattery et al, 2012;Thayer & Freeman, 1987). Some of these studies have used convenience samples rather than robust random samples, further limiting their external validity (e.g.…”

Section: Limitations Of Previous North American Wind Acceptance Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The processes around wind project planning and development can significantly affect public acceptance (Firestone et al, 2012b), and a lack of opportunity for local residents to engage meaningfully in the planning process may reduce support or increase local conflict (Bohn & Lant, 2009;Huesca-Pérez et al, Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research │17 2016; Phadke, 2011). In some wind development models, local citizens have been entirely removed from the planning and design of wind developments (Phadke, 2013).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Planning Process Fairness and Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Rand

Hoen

2017

Energy Research & Social Science

318

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Perceptions Of Planning Process Fairness and Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Of Previous North American Wind Acceptance Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Socioeconomic Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Of Previous North American Wind Acceptance Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perceptions Of Planning Process Fairness and Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Rand

Hoen

2017

Energy Research & Social Science

318

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States

Petrova

2013

WIREs Climate Change

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acronym NIMBY, known to stand for ‘Not‐In‐My‐Back‐Yard’, generally describes resistance to siting specific projects close to one's area of residence while exhibiting acceptance of similar projects elsewhere. As wind energy continues to be recognized as a successful technology for meeting renewable energy targets and decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, the siting of wind turbines is a growing challenge that policy makers, facility planners, and wind developers face. The most often cited motivations for public support and opposition are reviewed here with a focus on wind energy developments in the United States. The purpose is to present the existing state of research on community responses to wind energy and to answer the following questions: What motivates support and opposition to facility siting, and in particular to wind energy facilities? Does the literature provide substantial evidence that NIMBYism is the determining motivation for opposition in the United States and, by extension, does the term's widespread use help to explain opposition? What mechanisms have been proposed for ‘overcoming’ NIMBYism, if it is present? This paper, following the recommendations of other social scientists, provides a collective call for a significant course shift: rather than proposing strategies to ‘overcome’ opposition, research should focus on proposing how to make siting successful. Drawing on a review of the relevant literature, the ‘ENUF’ framework—which stands for ‘Engage, Never use NIMBY, Understand, and Facilitate’—is introduced as a step in that direction. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:575–601. doi: 10.1002/wcc.250 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior

show abstract

Public engagement with offshore renewable energy: a critical review

Wiersma

Devine‐Wright

2014

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offshore renewable energy, including offshore wind, tidal and wave energy, has sometimes been represented as opposition‐free alternatives to controversial technologies such as onshore wind turbines, and has received increasing attention from social scientists in recent years. A fragmented literature has emerged investigating public engagement with these technologies and the determinants of public acceptance, comprising 59 key studies—the majority investigating offshore wind energy (59%). This literature review argues that while the ways in which public actors engage with offshore renewable energy are to some extent similar to onshore energy infrastructure, there are also important differences. These include the generally lower levels of public knowledge about the technologies, a changing role for visual impacts, a fundamentally different, marine, spatial context, and different sets of stakeholders in different decision‐making arenas. There is a need to explore as yet unasked and unanswered questions—going beyond ‘established’ variables identified in the onshore wind‐based ‘beyond NIMBY’ literature—especially regarding the role of the marine location of these technologies, and the cross‐technology and cross‐disciplinary applicability of findings. In order to more fully understand public responses to energy infrastructures, future research needs to move beyond case studies of onshore wind developments, adopting more diverse and ambitious research designs and methodologies. This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Behavior Change and Responses

show abstract

Public acceptance of offshore wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter?

Cited by 74 publications

References 32 publications

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States

Public engagement with offshore renewable energy: a critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About