The DOI matches its Crossref record.
‘Green On Green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland
Abstract
The wind energy debate represents a new kind of environmental controversy which divides environmentalists of different persuasions who attach contrasting priority to global and local concerns. Case studies of public attitudes towards existing and proposed windfarm developments in Scotland and Ireland are used to test three counter-intuitive hypotheses derived from previous attitudinal research. These are: (a) that local people become more favourable towards windfarms after construction; (b) that the degree of acceptance increases with proximity to them; and (c) that the NIMBY syndrome(not-in-my-back-yard) does not adequately explain variations in public attitudes. All three hypotheses are supported by this study. Large majorities favour wind power development in principle and in (local) practice. Although some aspects of NIMBY attitudes exist, the surveys reveal an ‘inverse NIMBY’ syndrome, whereby those with windfarms in their ‘backyard’ strongly support the technology. The research endorses the view that aesthetic perceptions, both positive and negative, are the strongest single influence on individuals' attitudes towards wind power projects. Comparison of the current institutional factors driving wind energy development with those during earlier eras of hydro-power development and large-scale afforestation emphasizes the need for strategic planning guidance. The potential for using a planning-led approach to windfarm developments by adopting ‘Indicative Windfarm Strategies’ is discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?
Rand, J., & Hoen, B. (2017) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019 · Cited by 466
Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (2007) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640560701402075 · Cited by 448
Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants
Ansolabehere, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2009) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfp041 · Cited by 270
Mapping and measuring place attachment
Brown, G., Raymond, C. M., & Corcoran, J. (2015) · Applied Geography · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.011 · Cited by 230
Conflicting Stakeholder Interests and Natural Gas: A Macromarketing Perspective
Lewin, J. E., Strutton, D., & Paswan, A. K. (2011) · Journal of Macromarketing · doi:10.1177/0276146711405529 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S., & Birnie, R. V.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 853-875
- ISSN
- 0964-0568 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0559
- OpenAlex
- W2010320616
- Cited by
- 626
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ‘Green On Green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09640560500294376
- The paper
- Warren, C. R., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S., & Birnie, R. V. (2005). ‘Green On Green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500294376
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.