IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natene/v4y2019i4d10.1038_s41560-019-0347-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A strong relative preference for wind turbines in the United States among those who live near them

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremy Firestone

    (University of Delaware)

  • Hannah Kirk

    (University of Delaware)

Abstract

Studies on social acceptance of wind power projects typically evaluate wind power in isolation, or as a choice between wind and no wind. However, at a societal level, the choice is not limited to whether, how or where wind turbines should be sited, but whether society should generate electricity by wind or from some other source. Consequently, it is important to understand whether those living near local wind projects prefer them relative to other local power projects. Here, we show that approximately 90% of individuals in the United States who live within 8 km of a wind turbine prefer their local wind project to a centralized power plant sited a similar distance away. Wind is also preferred three to one over solar among the approximately two-thirds who have a preference. These results are relatively consistent across states with different characteristics, suggesting a strong social preference for wind turbines among their neighbours.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremy Firestone & Hannah Kirk, 2019. "A strong relative preference for wind turbines in the United States among those who live near them," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(4), pages 311-320, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natene:v:4:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1038_s41560-019-0347-9
    DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0347-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0347-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41560-019-0347-9?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Steven DiFalco & Anita T. Morzillo, 2021. "Comparison of Attitudes towards Roadside Vegetation Management across an Exurban Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Haris Doukas & Alexandros Nikas & Giorgos Stamtsis & Ioannis Tsipouridis, 2020. "The Green Versus Green Trap and a Way Forward," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-6, October.
    3. Jann Michael Weinand & Russell McKenna & Heidi Heinrichs & Michael Roth & Detlef Stolten & Wolf Fichtner, 2021. "Exploring the trilemma of cost-efficient, equitable and publicly acceptable onshore wind expansion planning," Papers 2106.15198, arXiv.org.
    4. Astrid Buchmayr & Luc Van Ootegem & Jo Dewulf & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2021. "Understanding Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Technologies and the Effect of Local Experiences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Baxter, Jamie & Ellis, Geraint & Wilson, Sara & McAteer, Ben, 2024. "Community-based wind energy development does not work? Empirical evidence from residents in Canada and Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Zander, Kerstin K. & Mathur, Deepika & Mathew, Supriya & Garnett, Stephen T., 2024. "Public views about the world's largest proposed solar farm in remote Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Pohl, Johannes & Rudolph, David & Lyhne, Ivar & Clausen, Niels-Erik & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Hübner, Gundula & Kørnøv, Lone & Kirkegaard, Julia K., 2021. "Annoyance of residents induced by wind turbine obstruction lights: A cross-country comparison of impact factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. McKenna, Russell & Weinand, Jann Michael & Mulalic, Ismir & Petrovic, Stefan & Mainzer, Kai & Preis, Tobias & Moat, Helen Susannah, 2020. "Improving renewable energy resource assessments by quantifying landscape beauty," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 43, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:natene:v:4:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1038_s41560-019-0347-9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.