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
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.
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
Cites
The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses
Dryzek, J. S. (1997) · Cited by 3,013
Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies
Healey, P. (2006) · doi:10.25405/ncl.34571748.v1 · Cited by 2,484
Healey, P. (1997) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2 · Cited by 2,232
Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices
Fischer, F. (2003) · doi:10.1093/019924264x.001.0001 · Cited by 1,821
Fischer, Frank,Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices
Dryzek, J. S. (2004) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1023/b:olic.0000035505.23131.80 · Cited by 1,720
Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies
Meyer, P. B. (1995) · Journal of Economic Issues · doi:10.1080/00213624.1995.11505729 · Cited by 1,710
Frame Reflection: Toward The Resolution Of Intractable Policy Controversies
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994) · Cited by 1,530
Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology
(1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511563737 · Cited by 1,342
Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy
Devine‐Wright, P. (2005) · Wind Energy · doi:10.1002/we.124 · Cited by 1,309
Blake, J. (1999) · Local Environment · doi:10.1080/13549839908725599 · Cited by 1,289
Cited by
research with children: methodological issues and innovative techniques
Fargas-Malet, M., McSherry, D., Larkin, E., & Robinson, C. (2010) · Journal of Early Childhood Research · doi:10.1177/1476718x09345412 · Cited by 520
Self-citationCowell, R., Bristow, G., & Munday, M. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.521047 · Cited by 417
Wolsink, M. (2024) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103392 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.