DOCSLIB.ORG

Perceived Socioeconomic Impacts of Wind Energy in West Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perceived Socioeconomic Impacts of Wind Energy in West Texas PERCEIVED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WIND ENERGY IN WEST TEXAS A Thesis by NICOLE D. PERSONS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May 2010 Major Subject: Geography PERCEIVED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WIND ENERGY IN WEST TEXAS A Thesis by NICOLE D. PERSONS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved by: Chair of Committee, Christian Brannstrom Committee Members, Wendy Jepson Samuel Brody Head of Department, Douglas Sherman May 2010 Major Subject: Geography iv ABSTRACT Perceived Socioeconomic Impacts of Wind Energy in West Texas. (May 2010) Nicole D. Persons, B.S., California University of Pennsylvania Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Christian Brannstrom Wind power is a fast growing alternative energy source. Since 2000, wind energy capacity has increased 24 percent per year with Texas leading the U.S. in installed wind turbine capacity. Most socioeconomic research in wind energy has focused on understanding local opposition, especially aesthetic impacts on the surrounding landscape. Recent studies have addressed reasons for social acceptance of wind farms, suggesting that positions both favorable and unfavorable to wind power are subtle and intricate, rather than monolithic, and rooted in place-specific issues. In the case of Texas, scholars have reported that the minimal permitting process is the dominant variable that explains the rapid rise of wind power in the state’s western region. However, scholars have yet to study the place-based local or regional factors that structure and inform acceptance of wind energy by key actors who negotiate with wind-energy firms. This thesis presents empirically determined, statistically significant social perspectives regarding socioeconomic wind energy impacts. I determined social perspectives by using Q-Method in Nolan County, Texas, a major site of wind-power development. Q-Method allows researchers to generalize about social perspectives, but not about how widely or deeply populations ascribe to v social perspectives. Q-Method combines qualitative and quantitative techniques beginning with semi-structured interviews to collect statements on wind power, followed by participant ranking of statements on a “most disagree” to “most agree” scale. Key actors surveyed included landowners with wind turbines, elected and civil- service government officials, and prominent local business and community leaders. My findings identified five significant clusters of opinion, two of which shared strong support for wind energy on the basis of perceived positive economic impacts. Three clusters of opinion were less favorable to wind energy; these arguments were based upon opposition to tax abatements, support of tax abatements, and concerns over negative impacts to the community. Consensus emerged over the idea that positive views toward wind-energy development were unrelated to broader commitments to renewable energy. The support of key actors in favor of wind energy is contingent upon direct financial benefits from wind-energy royalties, political views on taxes, notions of landscape aesthetics, and sense of community. vi DEDICATION To my friends and family vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Brannstrom, and my committee members, Dr. Jepson, and Dr. Brody, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this research. Thanks also go to my friends, colleagues, department faculty, and staff for making my time at Texas A&M University a great experience. I would like to thank Elizabeth Summers for her help with transcribing interviews. I also want to extend my gratitude to NextEra Energy Resources, which provided funding but had no influence on this research, and to all the participants who were willing to partake in the study. I would like to thank Robert Rhodes, Edlyn Walsh, and Melody Olfers for all of their support. Finally I would like to thank my family, my parents, Melissa, Charlie, and my niece, Elizabeth for their encouragement and love. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................. 3 2.1 Limitations of NIMBY and PIMBY Approaches ..................................................5 2.2 Planning and Permitting Processes in Wind Power Development .......................10 2.3 Aesthetic Issues in Wind Power Development ....................................................11 2.4 Economic Studies of Wind Power Development .................................................13 3. OBJECTIVES, STUDY REGION, DATA AND METHODS ................................ 19 3.1 Research Objectives ............................................................................................ 19 3.2 Study Region ....................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Q-Methodology ................................................................................................... 26 3.4 Data ..................................................................................................................... 36 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 65 4.1 Iteration Phase ..................................................................................................... 65 ix Page 4.2 Social Networking ............................................................................................... 68 4.3 General Interpretations ........................................................................................ 69 4.4 Wind Welcomers (Factor 1) ................................................................................ 71 4.5 Land-Based Wind Welcomers (Factor 2) ............................................................ 80 4.6 Disenchanted About Tax Abatements (Factor 3) ................................................ 87 4.7 Favorable Towards Tax Abatements (Factor 4) ................................................ 105 4.8 Community Advocate (Factor 5) ....................................................................... 113 5. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 124 5.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 125 5.2 Perceptions of Energy ....................................................................................... 130 5.3 Community Impacts .......................................................................................... 138 5.4 Wind Energy Literature in Human Geography ................................................. 146 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 151 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 156 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 162 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 164 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................. 167 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. 169 APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................. 170 APPENDIX F.............................................................................................................. 173 APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................. 174 APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................. 175 x Page APPENDIX I .............................................................................................................. 177 APPENDIX J .............................................................................................................. 178 APPENDIX K ............................................................................................................. 179 APPENDIX L ............................................................................................................. 180 APPENDIX M ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe
    Ecological Monitoring and Mitigation Policies and Practices at Offshore Wind Installations in the United States and Europe August 2020 Michael C. Allen, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, Matthew Campo, Senior Research Specialist, Environmental Analysis & Communications Group, Rutgers University Prepared for the New Jersey Climate Change Alliance (https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/). Working Group Members: John Cecil, New Jersey Audubon Tim Dillingham, American Littoral Society Patty Doerr, The Nature Conservancy of New Jersey Russell Furnari, PSEG Kevin Hassell, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Anthony MacDonald, Urban Coast Institute at Monmouth University Martha Maxwell-Doyle, Barnegat Bay Partnership David Mizrahi, Ph.D., New Jersey Audubon Technical Reviews and Acknowledgments Joseph Brodie, Ph.D. Jeanne Herb Marjorie Kaplan, Dr.P.H. Josh Kohut, Ph.D. Richard Lathrop, Ph.D. Julie Lockwood, Ph.D. Douglas Zemeckis, Ph.D. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-wn1p-cz80 1 ABSTRACT Offshore wind energy is poised to expand dramatically along the eastern United States. However, the promise of sustainable energy also brings potential impacts on marine ecosystems from new turbines and transmission infrastructure. This whitepaper informs government officials, scientists, and stakeholders in New Jersey about the current policies and monitoring methods other jurisdictions use to monitor potential ecological impacts from offshore wind installations. We reviewed policy documents in the eastern U.S. and Europe, reviewed the scientific literature, and conducted stakeholder interviews in Spring 2020. We found: 1. Short-term (3-5 year) project-specific efforts dominate coordinated regional and project life duration ecological monitoring efforts at offshore wind farms in North America and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary
    WIND POWERING AMERICA FY08 ACTIVITIES SUMMARY Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY08 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2008, there were more than 16,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 7,000 MW projected by year end, bringing the U.S. installed capacity to more than 23,000 MW by the end of 2008. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Twenty-two states now have more than 100 MW installed, compared to 17 at the end of 2007. We anticipate that four or five additional states will join the 100-MW club in 2009, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. Of course, the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report (developed by AWEA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and other stakeholders) indicates that 44 states may be in the 100-MW club by 2030, and 33 states will have more than 1,000 MW installed (at the end of 2008, there were six states in that category).
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy: Wind and Solar
    Renewable Energy: Chapter | 19 Wind and Solar ❖ Can Texans harness the wind and sun and even the jobs that go with these energy sources? 600-turbine development across 336,000 Introduction acres of West Texas. Financed by Chinese In late 2009, German utility giant E.ON banks, the development will feature new constructed the world’s largest wind farm in turbines made in China and will bring the tiny West Texas town of Roscoe. The 300 temporary construction jobs and 30 Roscoe wind farm has the capacity to produce permanent jobs to the area. Renewable 781.5 megawatts — enough electricity for energy in Texas is new — and it has already every home in Plano, McKinney and the been globalized. rest of the 265,000 households in Collin These giant wind projects illustrate County. The $1 billion project in Roscoe two key trends: Texas is emerging as took 21 months to complete and employed the capital of renewable energy, and 500 construction workers, who built 627 wind foreign companies are moving fast to take turbines on the fields of 300 property owners advantage. “People in Texas think it has — land that once pumped oil. got to be conventional energy or renewable The wind turbines of West Texas spin at energy. It’s not. It’s both,” said Michael 7 miles per hour. And one turbine produces Webber, an engineering professor at the about as much electricity as 350 households University of Texas at Austin and associate consume in a year. These economics are director of the Center for International attracting more wind turbines to the state, Energy and Environmental Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations
    Texas A&M Journal of Property Law Volume 1 Number 3 Wind Farming: Obstacles to Planning Article 5 and Development 2014 Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations Rod E. Wetsel University of Texas School of Law Steven K. DeWolf University of Texas School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/journal-of-property-law Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons Recommended Citation Rod E. Wetsel & Steven K. DeWolf, Ride Like the Wind: Selected Issues in Multi-Party Wind Lease Negotiations, 1 Tex. A&M J. Real Prop. L. 447 (2013). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/JPL.V1.I3.5 This Symposia Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Texas A&M Journal of Property Law by an authorized editor of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\T\TWR\1-3\TWR305.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-MAY-14 16:43 RIDE LIKE THE WIND:† SELECTED ISSUES IN MULTI-PARTY WIND LEASE NEGOTIATIONS By Rod E. Wetsel and Steven K. DeWolf ‡ I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 448 R II. HISTORY OF WIND DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS: THE WIND BOOM ............................................ 448 R III. THE TEXAS WIND LEASE ............................... 452 R A. Origins and Evolution .............................. 452 R B. Major Elements ..................................... 453 R IV. MULTI-PARTY WIND LEASE NEGOTIATIONS ............ 453 R A. The Town Hall Meeting Concept .................... 454 R B. Some Wind Groups and their Creators: Signing Parties .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Air Emissions Calculations from Wind and Other Renewables
    ESL-TR-20-07-01 STATEWIDE AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FROM WIND AND OTHER RENEWABLES VOLUME I A Report to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality For the Period January 2019 – December 2019 Juan-Carlos Baltazar, Ph.D., P.E.; Jeff Haberl, Ph.D.; Bahman Yazdani, P.E.; David Claridge, Ph.D., P.E.; Sungkyun Jung; Farshad Kheiri; Chul Kim July 2020 Page 1 ENERGY SYSTEMS LABORATORY July 15, 2020 Mr. Robert Gifford Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX 78711-3087 Dear Mr. Gifford, The Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) at the Texas Engineering Experiment Station of The Texas A&M University System is pleased to provide its annual report, “Statewide Emissions Calculations From Wind and Other Renewables,” as required by the 79th Legislature. This work has been performed through a contract with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In this work, the ESL is required to obtain input from public/private stakeholders, and develop and use a methodology to annually report the energy savings from wind and other renewables. This report summarizes the work performed by the ESL on this project from January 2019 to December 2019. Please contact me at (979) 845-9213 should you have questions concerning this report or the work presently being done to quantify emissions reductions from renewable energy measures as a result of the TERP implementation. Sincerely, David E. Claridge, Ph.D., P.E. Director Enclosure . Page 2 Disclaimer This report is provided by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) as required under Section 388.003 (e) of the Texas Health and Safety Code and is distributed for purposes of public information.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy in Texas: an Argument for Developing Offshore Wind Farms
    4A2EF709-5F17-08B920.DOC 6/9/2009 5:00 PM RECENT DEVELOPMENT WIND ENERGY IN TEXAS: AN ARGUMENT FOR DEVELOPING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS I. INTRODUCTION Because of the place of oil in Texas history, many find it surprising that Texas leads the nation in the development of wind energy. Even California, which many would suspect to lead the nation (though ranking second in the nation) does not produce half of the wind energy that Texas produces: 2,484 megawatts as compared to 5,317 megawatts of wind capacity.1 Texas is committed to the continued development of wind energy.2 In fact, the state is about to undertake a $4.93 billion expansion of its grid system in large part to facilitate additional wind capacity.3 Capacity upgrades to the transmission grid will allow for dramatic growth of wind farms in West Texas and allow consumers to access it.4 That is not to say that Texas does not 1. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, 2008 TEXAS STATE ENERGY PLAN 18 fig.8 (2008), available at http://governor.state.tx.us/files/gcc/2008_Texas_State_Energy_Plan.pdf. “Capacity” measures the productivity of a power production facility. AM. WIND ENERGY ASSOC., WIND ENERGY BASICS, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html (last visited Mar. 28, 2009) (“It compares the plant's actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time.”) . 2. GOVERNOR’S COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL, supra note 1, at 49. 3. ELEC.
    [Show full text]
  • May Flower Site Assessment Plan for Lease OCS-A 0521
    SAP Mayflower Wind Lease OCS-A 0521 Site Assessment Plan July 29, 2019 For Public Release SITE ASSESSMENT PLAN Mayflower Wind Lease OCS – A 0521 Massachusetts Offshore Wind Energy Area SUBMITTED TO: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy U.S. Department of the Interior 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP Sterling, Virginia 20166 Office 703-787-1577 Fax 703-787-1708 Attn: Jeff Browning, Mayflower Project Coordinator PREPARED FOR: Mayflower Wind Energy LLC 281 Albany Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 PREPARED BY: ESS Group, Inc. 10 Hemingway Drive, 2nd Floor East Providence, Rhode Island 02915 ESS Project No. M394-000.05 July 29, 2019 © 2019 ESS Group, Inc. – This document or any part may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording without the express written consent of ESS Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Mayflower Wind Lease OCS-A 0521 Site Assessment Plan July 29, 2019 For Public Release TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Information (30 CFR § 585.610(a)) ...................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Contact Information (§ 585.610(a)(1)) .................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Site Assessment Concept (§ 585.610(a)(2)) .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Empire Wind Project Version 1.0
    Environmental Mitigation Plan for the Empire Wind project Version 1.0 Prepared Pursuant to Section 12.06 of the Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreement by and Between the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and Equinor Wind US LLC Albany, NY Prepared by Equinor Wind US LLC 120 Long Ridge Road Ste 3EO1 Stamford, CT 06902 October 23, 2019 i Table of Contents 1. Environmental Mitigation Plan Summary ..................................................................................... 1 1.1. Overall philosophy and principles ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Overall approach to incorporating data and stakeholder feedback ............................................. 1 1.3. Existing guidance and best practices that will be followed .......................................................... 1 2. Communications and Collaboration Approach .............................................................................. 3 2.1. Overview and communication plan objectives ............................................................................. 3 2.2. Communication officers/positions, responsibilities, and contact information ............................ 3 2.3. Identification of stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 3 2.4. Participation in stakeholder and technical working groups ......................................................... 4 2.4.1. Communication
    [Show full text]
  • “The Energy Capital of the East Coast?”: Lessons Virginia Can Learn from Cape Wind Failure and European Success in Offshore Wind Energy
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 39 (2014-2015) Issue 3 Article 5 May 2015 “The Energy Capital of the East Coast?”: Lessons Virginia Can Learn from Cape Wind Failure and European Success in Offshore Wind Energy Lamya Moosa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Repository Citation Lamya Moosa, “The Energy Capital of the East Coast?”: Lessons Virginia Can Learn from Cape Wind Failure and European Success in Offshore Wind Energy, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 713 (2015), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol39/iss3/5 Copyright c 2015 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr “THE ENERGY CAPITAL OF THE EAST COAST?”: LESSONS VIRGINIA CAN LEARN FROM CAPE WIND FAILURE AND EUROPEAN SUCCESS IN OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY LAMYA MOOSA* INTRODUCTION The current opportunity for a successful wind energy initiative off the coast of Virginia will serve as the springboard for future investments in offshore wind energy throughout the United States. Virginia can act as a model for the rest of the nation for the viability of future initiatives if Virginia: 1) looks at successful examples of offshore wind projects used by European forerunners and 2) tailors the process to satiate our domes- tic concerns. Given the length of the United States coastlines and the strength of wind off our coasts,
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis
    Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Client Contact Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman Award Number DE-EE0005360 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 Bedford Street Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803-5154 781.270.8314 www.navigant.com February 22, 2013 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Annual Market Assessment Document Number DE-EE0005360 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Michael Hahn Patrick Gilman Prepared by: Navigant Consulting, Inc. Lisa Frantzis, Principal Investigator Lindsay Battenberg Mark Bielecki Charlie Bloch Terese Decker Bruce Hamilton Aris Karcanias Birger Madsen Jay Paidipati Andy Wickless Feng Zhao Navigant Consortium Member Organizations Key Contributors American Wind Energy Association Jeff Anthony and Chris Long Great Lakes Wind Collaborative John Hummer and Victoria Pebbles Green Giraffe Energy Bankers Marie DeGraaf, Jérôme Guillet, and Niels Jongste National Renewable Energy Laboratory Eric Lantz Ocean & Coastal Consultants (a COWI company) Brent D. Cooper, P.E., Joe Marrone, P.E., and Stanley M. White, P.E., D.PE, D.CE Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Michael D. Ernst, Esq. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis Page ii Document Number DE-EE0005360 Notice and Disclaimer This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the exclusive use of the U.S. Department of Energy – who supported this effort under Award Number DE-EE0005360. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power
    Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power Eric R. A. N. Smith Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Holly Klick Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Abstract Public opinion polls show that the American public strongly supports the development of wind power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Yet when specific wind farm proposals are made, they often meet local opposition, which is usually described as Nimby ("not-in-my- backyard") opposition. We examine public toward wind power in depth using an internet survey. Instead of only asking about support for wind power, we investigate how people respond to advantages and disadvantages of wind power. Our data show that questions asked in national surveys about proposals such as wind farms exaggerate the support for wind farms because the answers are typically superficial, top-of-the-head responses. When people think about the advantages and disadvantages of wind farms, as they would if a wind farm were proposed for their community, their support diminishes. Therefore, to explain NIMBY effects, researchers must look at both local and national opinion. Revised version of a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29, 2007 We would like to thank the Institute of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research, U.C. Santa Barbara, for funding to support this research 1 Introduction According to national opinion surveys, Americans overwhelmingly support government investment in renewable energy resources in general, and in wind power in particular. Despite this general popularity, proposals for specific wind power farms often face resistance from individual citizens, political leaders, grassroots organizations, national interest groups, and in some cases, even environmental groups.
    [Show full text]