Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Ellis, Geraint, Barry, John, Robinson, Clive·2007·Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09640560701402075

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Published
2007-07
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
517-551
ISSN
  • 0964-0568 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0559
OpenAlex
W2060732237
Cited by
448
References
68
FWCI
45.16
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: Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09640560701402075
The paper
Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402075

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.