IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v53y2010i5p535-558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Maarten Wolsink
  • Sylvia Breukers

Abstract

This paper analyses patterns in beliefs about the implementation of wind power as part of a geographical comparison of onshore wind power developments in the Netherlands, North-Rhine Westphalia and England. Q methodology is applied, in order to systematically compare the patterns in stakeholder views on the institutional conditions and changes in the domains of energy policy, spatial planning and environmental policy. Three factors represent support for wind power implementation from fundamentally different perspectives. The fourth perspective is critical opposed to wind power developments as well as critical to the manner in which wind projects are proposed, planned and implemented. These four perspectives exist across the geographical cases; however, some perspectives are prominent in one case and marginal in another. This relates to different legacies and varying implementation achievements in the three cases. The analysis shows that an approach that focuses on implementing as much wind power as possible, relying on technocratic reasoning and hierarchical policies is in practice the least successful, whereas collaborative perspectives with more emphasis on local issues and less on the interests of the conventional energy sector were particularly dominant in the most successful case, North-Rhine Westphalia.

Suggested Citation

  • Maarten Wolsink & Sylvia Breukers, 2010. "Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 535-558.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:53:y:2010:i:5:p:535-558
    DOI: 10.1080/09640561003633581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640561003633581
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640561003633581?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. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    2. Carpenter Juliet & Simme James & Conti Elisa & Povinelli Fabiana & Kipshagen Joschka Milan, 2012. "Innovation and New Path Creation: The Role of Niche Environments in the Development of the Wind Power Industry in Germany and the UK," European Spatial Research and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 19(2), pages 87-101, December.
    3. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    4. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    6. Kim, Heetae & Park, Eunil & Kwon, Sang Jib & Ohm, Jay Y. & Chang, Hyun Joon, 2014. "An integrated adoption model of solar energy technologies in South Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 523-531.
    7. Wolsink, Maarten, 2012. "Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-87.
    8. Jami, Anahita A.N. & Walsh, Philip R., 2014. "The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 194-202.
    9. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Matinga, Margaret N. & Pinedo-Pascua, Irene & Vervaeke, Jonathan & Monforti-Ferrario, Fabio & Szabó, Sándor, 2014. "Do African and European energy stakeholders agree on key energy drivers in Africa? Using Q methodology to understand perceptions on energy access debates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 154-164.
    11. Ali, Muhammad Rizwan & Shafiq, Muhammad, 2021. "Revealing expert perspectives on challenges to electricity Demand-Side Management in Pakistan: An application of Q-Methodology," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Danny MacKinnon & Stuart Dawley & Markus Steen & Max-Peter Menzel & Asbjørn Karlsen & Pascal Sommer & Gard Hopsdal Hansen & Håkon Endresen Normann, 2018. "Path creation, global production networks and regional development: a comparative international analysis of the offshore wind sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1810, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Feb 2018.
    13. Brannstrom, Christian & Gorayeb, Adryane & de Sousa Mendes, Jocicléa & Loureiro, Caroline & Meireles, Antonio Jeovah de Andrade & Silva, Edson Vicente da & Freitas, Ana Larissa Ribeiro de & Oliveira, , 2017. "Is Brazilian wind power development sustainable? Insights from a review of conflicts in Ceará state," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 62-71.
    14. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    15. Cláudio Albuquerque Frate & Christian Brannstrom, 2019. "How Do Stakeholders Perceive Barriers to Large-Scale Wind Power Diffusion? A Q-Method Case Study from Ceará State, Brazil," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Lombard, Andrea & Ferreira, Sanette, 2014. "Residents' attitudes to proposed wind farms in the West Coast region of South Africa: A social perspective from the South," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 390-399.
    17. Russell, Aaron & Firestone, Jeremy, 2022. "More than a feeling: Analyzing community cognitive and affective perceptions of the Block Island offshore wind project," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 214-224.
    18. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    19. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    20. Venus, Terese E. & Hinzmann, Mandy & Bakken, Tor Haakon & Gerdes, Holger & Godinho, Francisco Nunes & Hansen, Bendik & Pinheiro, António & Sauer, Johannes, 2020. "The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    21. Stewart Fast, 2015. "Qualified, absolute, idealistic, impatient: dimensions of host community responses to wind energy projects," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(7), pages 1540-1557, July.

    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:53:y:2010:i:5:p:535-558. 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.