IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v50y2007i4p517-551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Geraint Ellis
  • John Barry
  • Clive Robinson

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of public acceptance of wind farms by investigating the discourses of support and objection to a proposed offshore scheme. It reviews research into opposition to wind farms, noting previous criticisms that this has tended to provide descriptive rather than explanatory insights and as a result, has not effectively informed the policy debate. One explanation is that much of this research has been conceived within an unreflective positivist research frame, which is inadequate in dealing with the subjectivity and value-basis of public acceptance of wind farm development. The paper takes a case study of an offshore wind farm proposal in Northern Ireland and applies Q-Methodology to identify the dominant discourses of support and objection. It is argued that this provides new insights into the nature of wind farm conflicts, points to a number of recommendations for policy, and functions as an example of how this methodology can act as a potential bridge between positivist and post-positivist approaches to policy analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:50:y:2007:i:4:p:517-551
    DOI: 10.1080/09640560701402075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560701402075
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640560701402075?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.

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:50:y:2007:i:4:p:517-551. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.