Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time

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

“…Impacts on electricity rates are seen as a two-sided coin, with supporters citing reduced rates and opponents citing increased rates (Firestone et al, 2012a). Although nationwide and state-level studies in the United States have not found evidence of consistent, measurable, or significant reductions in home values near operating wind facilities (Hoen & AtkinsonPalombo, 2016;Hoen et al, 2015;Lang et al, 2014), the perception or belief of property value impacts may still affect acceptance of wind (Abbott, 2010;Walker et al, 2014a).…”

“…Firestone et al (2012a), for example, found that 48% of respondents believed Cape Wind would cause harm to bird life, and 44% thought it would harm marine life (those percentages decreased slightly in a repeat survey in 2009). Firestone and Kempton (2007) reported that if Cape Wind were found to harm marine or bird life, the majority of respondents would be less likely to support the project.…”

“…but not yet built (Firestone et al, 2009;Firestone et al, 2012a;Mulvaney et al, 2013b). In studies of people near existing wind facilities, 70%-90% of respondents express positive or neutral attitudes (Baxter et al, 2013;Fergen & Jacquet, 2016;Mulvaney et al, 2013b;Pasqualetti & Butler, 1987;Petrova, 2014;Slattery et al, 2012).…”

UK Macro-Algae Biofuels: A Strategic Management Review and Future Research Agenda

“…It has been suggested that the social acceptance of renewable technologies was ignored in favour of a focus on technology aspects, which in turn led to major opposition in the development of both wind and biomass [20]. This opposition has been based on negative perceptions of particular developments with opposing parties raising potential issues of emissions, bad smells, visual appearance/impact (greater for onshore and close to shore wind developments), traffic congestion and diminished recreational value, aesthetics, property, health and safety concerns [61,67], damage to marine life, aesthetics and impact on boating/fishing/recreational activities [68,69]. These perceptions are also likely to be accentuated if the individual is not familiar with the technology (as is likely to be the case with macro-algae biofuels) and where they feel powerless to affect the implementation in their neighbourhoods [61].…”

“…However, not all perceptions are negative and work also shows that individuals perceive the social benefits of job creation, energy security and social and economic development through direct and indirect employment which may lead them to support developments [8,61] as well as a desire overall for energy security/independence [68]. Areas around the north-west of Scotland have been highlighted as particularly suitable for macro-algae production, at least in part due to the existing skill base in this area [45].…”