IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v117y2018icp413-422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wind farm acceptance for sale? Evidence from the Danish wind farm co-ownership scheme

Author

Listed:
  • Johansen, K.
  • Emborg, J.

Abstract

The Danish Renewable Energy Act features several financial incentive structures with direct local-level implications. One of these is the wind farm co-ownership scheme, OPSS. In this study, we explore local perceptions of OPSS via survey-data collected during the Danish near-shore bid for tender in 2015 from almost 2000 respondents. Empirical evidence suggests that demographic facts, such as gender and age, influence the general appeal of the scheme, and as engagement in wind-projects via OPSS presupposes investment liquidity, OPSS is not equal for all. Furthermore, most potential OPSS-investors already support the planned wind farm projects, and many project opponents will not engage themselves in something they are against in principle. Finally, economic benefits potentially gained via OPSS do not appear to compensate for values feared violated by wind farms by many wind farm project stakeholders. While OPSS is a very positive policy attempt at creating local engagement via wind farm co-ownership, it is clear that the scheme alone will not adequately compensate for local wind farm related grievances. Real world facts and complications, such as demographics, preconceived project perceptions and personal values, get in the way. Implications of the study for related policies are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Johansen, K. & Emborg, J., 2018. "Wind farm acceptance for sale? Evidence from the Danish wind farm co-ownership scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 413-422.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:117:y:2018:i:c:p:413-422
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518300454
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lex Borghans & Bart H. H. Golsteyn & James J. Heckman & Huub Meijers, 2009. "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 649-658, 04-05.
    2. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    3. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2001. "Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 261-292.
    4. Richard Cowell & Gill Bristow & Max Munday, 2011. "Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 539-557.
    5. Sperling, Karl & Hvelplund, Frede & Mathiesen, Brian Vad, 2010. "Evaluation of wind power planning in Denmark – Towards an integrated perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5443-5454.
    6. Lex Borghans & Bart H.H. Golsteyn & James J. Heckman & Huub Meijers, 2009. "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity," Working Papers 200903, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    7. Mhairi Aitken & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph, 2016. "Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 557-576, October.
    8. Kerr, Sandy & Johnson, Kate & Weir, Stephanie, 2017. "Understanding community benefit payments from renewable energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 202-211.
    9. Musall, Fabian David & Kuik, Onno, 2011. "Local acceptance of renewable energy--A case study from southeast Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3252-3260, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Damián Copena & David Pérez-Neira & Xavier Simón, 2019. "Local Economic Impact of Wind Energy Development: Analysis of the Regulatory Framework, Taxation, and Income for Galician Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    5. Agnieszka Rochmińska, 2023. "Wind Energy Infrastructure and Socio-Spatial Conflicts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Eva Eichenauer & Ludger Gailing, 2022. "What Triggers Protest?—Understanding Local Conflict Dynamics in Renewable Energy Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Manuel Gardt & Tom Broekel & Philipp Gareis, 2021. "Blowing against the winds of change? The relationship between anti-wind initiatives and wind turbines in Germany," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2119, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    8. Johansen, Katinka, 2021. "Blowing in the wind: A brief history of wind energy and wind power technologies in Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    9. Radtke, Jörg & Bohn, Nino S., 2023. "Mind the gap: Community member perceptions of shortcomings in diversity and inclusivity of local energy projects in Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Borch, Kristian, 2018. "Mapping value perspectives on wind power projects: The case of the danish test centre for large wind turbines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 251-258.
    11. Radtke, Jörg & Ohlhorst, Dörte, 2021. "Community Energy in Germany – Bowling Alone in Elite Clubs?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. August Wierling & Valeria Jana Schwanitz & Jan Pedro Zeiß & Celine Bout & Chiara Candelise & Winston Gilcrease & Jay Sterling Gregg, 2018. "Statistical Evidence on the Role of Energy Cooperatives for the Energy Transition in European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    13. Johansen, Katinka, 2019. "Local support for renewable energy technologies? Attitudes towards local near-shore wind farms among second home owners and permanent area residents on the Danish coast," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 691-701.
    14. Carroll, P. & Singh, B. & Mangina, E., 2024. "Uncovering gender dimensions in energy policy using Natural Language Processing," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. le Maitre, Julia & Ryan, Geraldine & Power, Bernadette & O'Connor, Ellen, 2023. "Empowering onshore wind energy: A national choice experiment on financial benefits and citizen participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    16. Cao, Jiu Fa & Zhu, Wei Jun & Shen, Wen Zhong & Sørensen, Jens Nørkær & Sun, Zhen Ye, 2020. "Optimizing wind energy conversion efficiency with respect to noise: A study on multi-criteria wind farm layout design," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 468-485.
    17. Georgia Skiniti & Tryfon Daras & Theocharis Tsoutsos, 2022. "Analysis of the Community Acceptance Factors for Potential Wind Energy Projects in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-35, November.
    18. le Maitre, Julia & Ryan, Geraldine & Power, Bernadette & Sirr, Gordon, 2024. "Mechanisms to promote household investment in wind energy: A national experimental survey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    19. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Sirr, Gordon & Power, Bernadette & Ryan, Geraldine & Eakins, John & O’Connor, Ellen & le Maitre, Julia, 2023. "An analysis of the factors affecting Irish citizens’ willingness to invest in wind energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    21. Menzel, Tobias & Teubner, Timm, 2024. "Signaling sustainability and regionality in the electricity market: An eye-tracking study on visual labels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PB).
    22. Croonenbroeck, Carsten & Hennecke, David, 2024. "Quantifying the municipal encirclement effect of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    23. Clausen, Laura Tolnov & Rudolph, David, 2020. "Renewable energy for sustainable rural development: Synergies and mismatches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    24. Cohen, Jed J. & Azarova, Valeriya & Kollmann, Andrea & Reichl, Johannes, 2021. "Preferences for community renewable energy investments in Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Graeme G. Acheson & Gareth Campbell & Áine Gallagher & John D. Turner, 2021. "Independent women: investing in British railways, 1870–1922," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 74(2), pages 471-495, May.
    3. Bernd Frick & Clarissa Laura Maria Spiess Bru & Daniel Kaimann, 2023. "Are Women (Really) More Lenient? Gender Differences in Expert Evaluations," Working Papers Dissertations 106, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    4. Gebreslassie, Mulualem G., 2020. "Public perception and policy implications towards the development of new wind farms in Ethiopia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Julie A. Nelson, 2015. "Are Women Really More Risk-Averse Than Men? A Re-Analysis Of The Literature Using Expanded Methods," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 566-585, July.
    6. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    7. Fawad Ahmad, 2020. "Personality traits as predictor of cognitive biases: moderating role of risk-attitude," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(4), pages 465-484, June.
    8. Wozniak, David, 2009. "Choices About Competition: Differences by gender and hormonal fluctuations, and the role of relative performance feedback," MPRA Paper 21097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Agier, Isabelle & Szafarz, Ariane, 2013. "Microfinance and Gender: Is There a Glass Ceiling on Loan Size?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 165-181.
    10. Nelson, Julie A., 2012. "Are Women Really More Risk-Averse than Men?," Working Papers 179104, Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute.
    11. Nabanita Datta Gupta & Anders Poulsen & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Gender Matching And Competitiveness: Experimental Evidence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 816-835, January.
    12. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.
    13. Knauf, Jakob & le Maitre, Julia, 2023. "A matter of acceptability? Understanding citizen investment schemes in the context of onshore wind farm development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Jarkko Peltomäki & Jukka Sihvonen & Steve Swidler & Sami Vähämaa, 2021. "Age, gender, and risk‐taking: Evidence from the S&P 1500 executives and market‐based measures of firm risk," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(9-10), pages 1988-2014, October.
    15. Edin, Per-Anders & Selin, Håkan, 2022. "Financial Risk-Taking and the Gender Wage Gap," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Maria Giuseppina Bruna & Rey Dang & Marie-José Scotto & Aymen Ammari, 2019. "Does board gender diversity affect firm risk-taking? Evidence from the French stock market," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(4), pages 915-938, December.
    17. Aggarwal, Divya & Damodaran, Uday, 2020. "Ambiguity attitudes and myopic loss aversion: Experimental evidence using carnival games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    18. le Maitre, Julia & Ryan, Geraldine & Power, Bernadette & Sirr, Gordon, 2024. "Mechanisms to promote household investment in wind energy: A national experimental survey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    19. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Gu, Pu, 2020. "The effects of social bias against female analysts on markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:117:y:2018:i:c:p:413-422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.