Public perception of and engagement with emerging low-carbon energy technologies: A literature review

MRS Energy and Sustainability

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Peterson, Tarla Rai ^a   Stephens, Jennie C ^b   Wilson, Elizabeth J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

economics; education; environment; society

Indexed keywords

CARBON;

ENERGY; ENVIRONMENT; FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES; LITERATURE REVIEWS; LOW-CARBON ENERGY SYSTEMS; LOW-CARBON ENERGY TECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SOCIETY; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

WIND POWER;

EID: 85141861363     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23292237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1557/mre.2015.12     Document Type: Review

References (166)

1. Miles R.: The origin and meaning of Miles’ Law. Public Adm. Rev. 38(5), 399–403 (1978).
2. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Research Council, America’s Energy Future, ed. National Academies of Sciences. 2009, Washington DC.
3. Brown L., Larsen J., Roney J.M., and Adams E.E.: The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy (Earth Policy Institute, W.W. Norton, New York, 2015).
4. Baker R.: Energy policy. In The Problem of Public Perception, in Energy, Science, Policy, and the Pursuit of Sustainability, Bent R., Orr L., and Baker R. eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, 2002.
5. Furby L., Slovic P., Fischhoff B., and Gregory R.: Public perceptions of electric power transmission lines. J. Environ. Psychol. 8(1), 19–43 (1988).
6. Barke R.P. and Jenkins-Smith H.C.: Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal. 13(4), 425–439 (1993).
7. Farhar B.C.: Trends in US public perceptions and preferences on energy and environmental policy. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 19(1), 211–239 (1994).
8. Poumadere M., Mays C., Slovic P., Flynn J., and Johnson S.: What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. In The Nuclear Power Option. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Nuclear Power Option Held in Vienna, 5–8 September 1994, 1995.
9. Gustafson P.E.J.: Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal. 18(6), 805–811 (1998).
10. Sjöberg L.: Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal. 23(4), 739–749 (2003).
11. 2. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(24), 6441–6450 (2004).
12. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N., and Lorenzoni I.: Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. School of Environmental Sciences. University of East Anglia, 2006.
13. Shackley S., Mander S., and Reiche A.: Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 34(18), 3423–3433 (2006).
14. Carr-Cornish S. and Romanach L.: Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy technology in Australia. Energies 7(3), 1555–1575 (2011).
15. Poumadère M., Bertoldo R., and Samadi J.: Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: Nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 2(5), 712–727 (2011).
16. Mah D.N-y., van der Vleuten J.M., Hills P., and Tao J.: Consumer perceptions of smart grid development: Results of a Hong Kong survey and policy implications. Energy Policy 49, 204 (2012).
17. Chaudhry R., Fischlein M., Larson J., Hall D.M., Peterson T.R., Wilson E.J., and Stephens J.C.: Policy stakeholders’ perceptions of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A comparison of four U.S. States. J. Cleaner Prod. 52, 21–32 (2013).
18. Reiner D.M., Curry T.E., Figueiredo M.A.d., Herzog H.J., Ansolabehere S.D., Itaoka K., Johnsson F., and Odenberger M.: American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(7), 2093–2098 (2006).
19. Upreti B.R. and van der Horst D.: National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: The failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass Bioenergy 26(1), 61–69 (2004).
20. Upham P. and Shackley S.: Local public opinion of a proposed 21.5 MW (e) biomass gasifier in Devon: Questionnaire survey results. Biomass Bioenergy 31(6), 433–441 (2007).
21. Kaldellis J.K., Kapsali M., Kaldelli E., and Katsanou E.: Comparing recent views of public attitude on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications. Renewable Energy 52, 197–208 (2013).
22. Kontogianni A., Tourkolias C., Skourtos M., and Damigos D.: Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms. Renewable Energy 66, 170–177 (2014).
23. Conway F., Stevenson J., Hunter D., Stefanovich M., Campbell H., Covell Z., and Yin Y.: Ocean space, ocean place: The human dimensions of wave energy in Oregon. Oceanography 23(2), 82–91 (2010).
24. Scheer D., Konrad W., and Scheel O.: Public evaluation of electricity technologies and future low-carbon portfolios in Germany and the USA. Energy Sustainability Soc. 3(1), 1–13 (2013).
25. Rosa E.A. and Dunlap R.E.: Poll trends: Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion. Publ. Opin. Q 58(2), 295–324 (1994).
26. Carley S.R., Krause R.M., Warren D.C., Rupp J.A., and Graham J.D.: Early public impressions of terrestrial carbon capture and storage in a coal-intensive state. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46(13), 7086–7093 (2012).
27. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., and Poortinga W.: Climate change or nuclear power: No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environ. Change 18(1), 69–85 (2008).
28. Walker G.: Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy 12(1), 49–59 (1995).
29. Bolsen T. and Lomax-Cook F.: The polls–trends: Public opinion on energy policy: 1974–2006. Publ. Opin. Q 72, 364–388 (2008).
30. Sandfort J. and Moulton S.: Effective Implementation in Practice: Integrating Public Policy and Management (Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA, 2015).
31. Stephens J.C., Wilson E.J., and Peterson T.R.: Smart Grid (R)Evolution: Electric Power Struggles (Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 2015).
32. Devine-Wright P.: Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 31(4), 336–343 (2011).
33. Lewicka M.: Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 Years? J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 207–230 (2011).
34. Wolsink M.: Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35(5), 2692–2704 (2007).
35. Warren C.R., Lumsden C., O’Dowd S., and Birnie R.V.: “Green on green”: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 48(6), 853–875 (2005).
36. Lovich J.E. and Ennen J.R.: Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, United States. BioScience 61(12), 982–992 (2011).
37. Williams W. and Whitcomb R.: Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound (Public Affairs, New York, 2007).
38. Kemtpon W., Firestone J., Lilley J., Rouleau T., and Whitaker P.: The offshore wind power debate: Views from Cape Cod. Coastal Manage. 33(2), 119–149 (2005).
39. Phadke R.: Steel forests or smoke stacks: The politics of visualisation in the Cape Wind controversy. Environ. Polit. 19(1), 1–20 (2010).
40. McAdam D. and Boudet H.: Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012).
41. Ellis G., Barry J., and Robinson C.: Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 50(4), 517–551 (2007).
42. Devine-Wright P.: Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8(2), 125–139 (2005).
43. Wolsink M.: Entanglement of interests and motives: Assumptions behind the “NIMBY-theory” on facility siting. Urban Stud. 31(6), 851–866 (1994).
44. Wolsink M.: Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21(1), 49–64 (2000).
45. Bell D., Gray T., and Haggett C.: The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environ. Polit. 14(4), 460–477 (2005).
46. van der Horst D.: NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35(5), 2705–2714 (2007).
47. Petrova M.A.: NIMBYism revisited: Public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 4(6), 575–601 (2014).
48. Bidwell D.: The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 58, 189–199 (2013).
49. Schively C.: Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J. Plann. Lit. 21(3), 255–266 (2007).
50. Wolsink M.: Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 31(1), 85–91 (2006).
51. Devine-Wright H. and Devine-Wright P.: Social representations of electricity network technologies: Exploring processes of anchoring and objectification through the use of visual research methods. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48(2), 357–373 (2009).
52. Devine-Wright P. and Howes Y.: Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 30(3), 271–280 (2010).
53. Fischlein M., Wilson E., Stephens J., and Peterson T.: States of transmission: Moving towards large scale wind power. Energy Policy 56, 101–113 (2013).
54. Vajjhala S.P. and Fischbeck P.S.: Quantifying siting difficulty: A case study of U.S. transmission line siting. Energy Policy 35(1), 650–671 (2007).
55. Klass A.B. and Wilson E.J.: Interstate transmission challenges for renewable energy: A federalism mismatch. Vanderbuilt Law Reveiw, 65, 1801–1873 (2012).
56. Devine-Wright P.: Reconsidering Public Attitudes and Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: A Critical Review (School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2007). Available at: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism.
57. Firestone J., Kempton W., and Krueger A.: Public acceptance of offshore wind power projects in the USA. Wind Energy 12(2), 183–202 (2009).
58. Swofford J. and Slattery M.: Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 38(5), 2508–2519 (2010).
59. Eltham D.C., Harrison G.P., and Allen S.J.: Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning. Energy Policy 36(1), 23–33 (2008).
60. Slattery M.C., Johnson B.L., Swofford J.A., and Pasqualetti M.J.: The predominance of economic development in the support for large-scale wind farms in the US Great Plains. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16(6), 3690–3701 (2012).
61. Chesto J.: Falmouth Turbine Controversy Could Hinder the Expansion of Wind Energy in the State (Mass Market, 2011). http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/massmarkets/2011/03/08/falmouth-turbine-controversy-could-hinder-the-expansion-of-wind-energy-in-the-state/.
62. Adaramola M.: Solar Energy: Application, Economics, and Public Perception (Apple Academic Press, Oakville, Ontario, Canada, 2014).
63. Kishore P. and Kisiel J.: Exploring high school students’ perceptions of solar energy and solar cells. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 8, 521–534 (2013).
64. Stephens J.C. and Jiusto S.: Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: Socio-technical dynamics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA. Energy Policy 38, 2020–2031 (2010).
65. Bradbury J., Ray I., Peterson T., Wade S., Wong-Parodi G., and Feldpausch A.: The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: Results of multi-state focus group interviews in the US. Energy Procedia 1(1), 4665–4672 (2009).
66. Tokushgie K., Akimoto K., and Tomoda T.: Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 1(1), 101–112 (2007).
67. Krohn S. and Damborg S.: On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 16(1), 954–960 (1999).
68. Jones C.R. and Eiser J.R.: Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 37(11), 4604–4614 (2009).
69. Bronfman N.C., Jiminez R.B., Arevalo P.C., and Cifuentes L.A.: Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 46, 246–252 (2012).
70. Dupuy C. and Torre A.: Local clusters, trust, confidence and proximity. In Clusters and Globalization: The Development of Urban and Regional Economies, Pitelis C., Sugden R. and Wilson J.R. eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northhampton, MA, 2006.
71. Coenen L., Raven R., and Verbong G.: Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technol. Soc. 32, 295–302 (2010).
72. Krause R.M., Carley S., Warren D.C., Rupp J., and Graham J.D.: Not under my backyard: Geographic proximity and public acceptance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities. In APPAM Annual Meeting, 2012.
73. Shackley S., McLachlan C., and Gough C.: The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: Results from focus groups and a survey. Clim. Policy 4(4), 377–398 (2005).
74. Moula E., Munjur M., Maula J., Hamdy M., Fang T., Jung N., and Lahdelma R.: Researching social acceptability of renewable energy technologies in Finland. Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 2(1), 89–98 (2014).
75. Huijts N.M.A., Molin E.J.E., and Steg L.: Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16(1), 525–531 (2012).
76. Arvai J.: Risk, perception, Assessment and communication. In Encyclopedia of Environment and Society, Robbins P. ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2007; pp. 1519–1525.
77. Finucane M.L.: Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health Risk Soc. 2(2), 159–172 (2000).
78. Groth T.M. and Vogt C.: Residents’ perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan. Energy Policy 65, 251–260 (2004).
79. Agterbosch S., Glasbergen P., and Vermeulen W.J.V.: Social barriers in wind power implementation in The Netherlands: Perceptions of wind power entrepreneurs and local civil servants of institutional and social conditions in realizing wind power projects. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 11(6), 1025–1055 (2007).
80. Phadke R.: Resisting and reconciling big wind: Middle landscape politics in the New American West. Antipode 43(3), 754–776 (2011).
81. Pasqualetti M.J., Gipe P., and Righter R.W.: Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World (Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2002).
82. Heberlein T.A.: Navigating Environmental Attitudes (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).
83. Kahan D.: Emotion in risk Regulation: Competing theories. In Emotions and Risky Technologies, Roeser S. ed.; Springer: Netherlands, 2010; pp. 159–175.
84. Sturgis P. and Allum N.: Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Publ. Understand. Sci. 13(1), 55–74 (2004).
85. Meadowcroft J.: Participation and sustainable development: Modes of citizen, community and organizational involvement. In Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function, Lafferty W.M. ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2004; pp. 162–190.
86. Peterson T.R. and Feldpausch-Parker A.: Environmental conflict communication. In The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, Oetzel J.G. and Ting-Toomey S. eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013; pp. 513–537.
87. Arnstein S.R.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 35(4), 216–224 (1969).
88. Cox Callister D.: Land community participation: A new “Public” participation model. Environ. Commun. 7(4), 435–455 (2013).
89. Salzman J. and Thompson B.H.: Environmental Law and Policy (Foundation Press, New York, 2010).
90. Hunter D. and Zaelke D.: International Environmental Law and Policy (Foundation Press, New York, 2010).
91. Barnett J., Burningham K., Walker G., and Cass N.: Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Publ. Understand. Sci. 21(1), 36–50 (2012).
92. Barry J., Ellis G., and Robinson C.: Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environ. Polit. 8(2), 67–98 (2008).
93. Hall N., Ashworth P., and Devine-Wright P.: Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy 58, 200–208 (2013).
94. Wolsink M.: Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 11(6), 1188–1207 (2007).
95. Firestone J. and Kempton W.: Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors. Energy Policy 35, 1584–1598 (2007).
96. Breeze R.: Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after deepwater horizon. Discourse Soc. 23(1), 3–18 (2012).
97. Olaniran B.A. and Williams D.E.: Applying anticipatory and relational perspectives to the Nigerian delta region oil crisis. Publ. Relat. Rev. 34(1), 57–59 (2008).
98. Williams D.E. and Olaniran B.A.: Exxon’s decision-making flaws: The hypervigilant response to the Valdez grounding. Publ. Relat. Rev. 20(1), 5–18 (1994).
99. Williams D.E. and Treadaway G.: Exxon and the Valdez accident: A failure in crisis communication. Commun. Stud. 43(1), 56–64 (1992).
100. Cotton A.J., Veil S.R., and Iannarino N.T.: Contaminated communication: TEPCO and organizational renewal at the fukushima daiichi nuclear power plant. Commun. Stud. 66, 27–44 (2015).
101. Miller B.M. and Lellis J.C.: Response to marketplace advocacy messages by sponsor and topic within the energy industry: Should corporations or industry trade groups do the talking? J. Appl. Commun. Res. 43(1), 66–90 (2015).
102. Miller B.M.: Community stakeholders and marketplace advocacy: A model of advocacy, agenda building, and industry approval. J. Publ. Relat. Res. 22(1), 85–112 (2010).
103. Chewning L.V.: Multiple voices and multiple media: Co-constructing BP’s crisis response. Publ. Relat. Rev. 41, 72–79 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.012(1).
104. Webster F. ed.: Culture and Politics in the Information Age: A New Politics? (Routledge, London, 2001).
105. Utz S., Schultz F., and Glocka S.: Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Publ. Relat. Rev. 39(1), 40–46 (2013).
106. Wakefield S.E.L. and Elliott S.J.: Constructing the news: The role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication. Prof. Geogr. 55(2), 216–226 (2003).
107. Graber D.A.: Mass Media and American Politics (CQ Press, Washington, DC, 1997).
108. Hansen A.: The media and the social construction of the environment. Media Cult. Soc. 13, 443–458 (1991).
109. McCombs M.: The agenda-setting role of the mass media in the shaping of public opinion. In Mass Media Economics 2002 Conference, London School of Economics: London, UK, 2002.
110. Gamson W.A. and Modigliani A.: Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A Constructionist approach. Am. J. Sociol. 95(1), 1–37 (1989).
111. Feldpausch-Parker A.M. and Peterson T.R.: Communicating the science behind carbon sequestration: A case study of US Department of Energy and Regional Partnership websites. Environ. Commun. 7(3), 1–20 (2014).
112. Feldpausch-Parker A.M., Chaudhry R., Stephens J., Fischlein M., Hall D., Melnick L., Peterson T., Ragland C., and Wilson E.J.: Spreading the news on carbon capture and storage: A state-level comparison of US media. Environ. Commun. 7(3), 336–354 (2013).
113. McCombs M.E.: Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion (Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004).
114. Feldpausch-Parker A.M., Chaudry R., Stephens J.C., Fischlein M., Hall D.M., Melnick L.L., Peterson T.R., Ragland C.J., and Wilson E.J.: A comparative state-level analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS) discourse among U.S. energy stakeholders and the public. Energy Procedia 4(4), 6368–6375 (2011).
115. Culbertson H.M. and Stempel G.H.: ”Media malaise”: Explaining personal optimism and societal pessimism about health care. J. Commun. 35, 180–190 (1985).
116. Dunwoody S. and Neuwirth K.: Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgments. In Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk and Public Policy, Wilkins L. and Patterson P. eds.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 1991; pp. 11–30.
117. Gregory R.: Improving risk communications: Questions of content and intent. In Prospects and Problems in Risk Communication, Leiss W. ed.; University of Waterloo Press: Waterloo, 1989; pp. 71–80.
118. Murray D., Schwartz J., and Lichter S.R.: It Ain’t Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, MD, 2001).
119. Singer E.T. and Endreny P.M.: Reporting hazards: Their benefits and costs. J. Commun. 37(3), 10–26 (1987).
120. Nelson T., Oxley Z., and Clawson R.: Toward a psychology of framing effects. Polit. Behav. 19(3), 221–246 (1997).
121. Crawley C.E.: Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers—A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Sci. Commun. 28(3), 314–346 (2007).
122. Schirrmeister M.: Controversial futures—Discourse analysis on utilizing the “fracking” technology in Germany. Eur. J. Futures Res. 2, 38 (2014).
123. Stephens J.C., Rand G.M., and Melnick L.L.: Wind energy in US Media: A comparative state-level analysis of a critical climate change mitigation technology. Environ. Commun.: J. Nat. Cult. 3(2), 168–190 (2009).
124. Corbett J.B. and Durfee J.L.: Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Sci. Commun. 26(2), 129–151 (2004).
125. Boyd A., Einsiedel E., Liu Y., Meadowcroft J., Peterson T., Pollak M., Stephens J., and Wilson E.: Controversy in technology innovation: Contrasting media and expert risk perception of the alleged leakage at the Weyburn carbon dioxide storage demonstration project. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Controls 14, 259–269 (2013).
126. Langheim R., Skubel M., Chen X., Maxwell W., Peterson T.R., Wilson E.J., and Stephens J.C.: Smart grid coverage in U.S. newspapers: Characterizing public conversations. Electr. J. 27(5), 77–87 (2014).
127. Fischlein M., Peterson T.R., Stephens J.C., and Wilson E.J.: Which way does the wind blow? Analyzing the sub-national context for renewable energy deployment in the United States. Environ. Governance 24(3), 169–187 (2014).
128. Stephens J., Peterson T., and Wilson E.: Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED): A framework applied to smart grid UCLA Law Review 61, 1930–1961 (2014).
129. Davies S.R. and Selin C.: Energy futures: Five dilemmas of the practice of anticipatory governance. Environ. Commun. 6(1), 119–136 (2012).
130. Endres D., Sprain L., and Peterson T.R.: Social Movement to Address Climate Change: Local Steps for Global Action (Cambria Press, Amherst, NY, 2009).
131. Kinsella W.J., Kelly A.R., and Kittle Autry M.: Risk, regulation, and rhetorical boundaries: Claims and challenges surrounding a purported nuclear renaissance. Commun. Monogr. 80(3), 278–301 (2013).
132. Klassen J.A. and Feldpausch-Parker A.M.: Oiling the gears of public participation: The value of organisations in establishing trinity of voice for communities impacted by the oil and gas industry. Local Environ. 16(9), 903–915 (2011).
133. Sterman J.D.: Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim. Change 108, 811–826 (2011).
134. Fischhoff B.: The nuclear energy industry’s communication problem. Bull. At. Sci. (2009). http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-energy-industrys-communication-problem.
135. Zoellner J., Schweizer-Ries P., and Wemheuer C.: Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 36(11), 4136–4141 (2008).
136. Kaldellis J.K. and Kavadias K.A.: Evaluation of Greek wind parks visual impact. “The public attitude”. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 13(5), 413–423 (2004).
137. Kaldellis J.K.: Social attitude towards wind energy applications in Greece. Energy Policy 33(5), 595–602 (2005).
138. Maillé M-È. and Saint-Charles J.: Fuelling an environmental conflict through information diffusion strategies. Environ. Commun. 8(3), 305–325 (2014).
139. Fenton P., Gustafsson S., Ivner J., and Palm J.: Stakeholder participation in municipal energy and climate planning—Experiences from Sweden. Local Environ. 1–18 (2014).
140. Munday M., Bristow G., and Cowell R.: Wind farms in rural areas: How far do community benefits from wind farms represent a local economic development opportunity? J. Rural. Stud. 27(1), 1–12 (2011).
141. Warren C.R. and McFadyen M.: Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Energy Policy 27, 204–213 (2010).
142. Musall F.D. and Kuik O.: Local acceptance of renewable energy–A case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 39(6), 3252–3260 (2011).
143. Dinica V.: Initiating a sustained diffusion of wind power: The role of public-private partnerships in Spain. Energy Policy 36(9), 3562–3571 (2008).
144. Toke D., Breukers S., and Wolsink M.: Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences? Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 12(4), 1129–1147 (2008).
145. Fontaine G.: The effects of governance modes on the energy matrix of Andean countries. Energy Policy 39(5), 2888–2898 (2011).
146. EcoGrid E.U.: Eco Grid EU: From Design to Implementation, European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7), Zurich, Switzerland, 2013.
147. Kumagai J.: The smartest, greenest grid: What the little Danish Island of Bornholm about the future of energy. IEEE Spectrum 50(5), 42–47 (2013).
148. Leiserowitz A.A.: American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25(6), 1433–1442 (2005).
149. Boykoff M.T. and Boykoff J.M.: Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38(6), 1190–1204 (2007).
150. Fletcher A.L.: Clearing the air: The contribution of frame analysis to understanding climate policy in the United States. Environ. Polit. 18(5), 800–816 (2009).
151. Wilson E.J. and Stephens J.C.: Wind in a carbon-managed world: States, resources, policy and discourse. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43(24), 9063–9070 (2009).
152. Feldpausch-Parker A.M., O’Byrne M., Endres D., and Peterson T.R.: The Adventures of Carbon Bond: Using a melodramatic game to explain CCS as a mitigation strategy for climate change. Greenhouse Gases: Sci. Technol. 3(1), 21–29 (2013).
153. Perreault T. and Valdivia G.: Hydrocarbons, popular protest and national imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in comparative context. Geoforum 41(5), 689–699 (2010).
154. Fischlein M., Larson J., Hall D.M., Chaudhry R., Peterson T.R., Stephens J.C., and Wilson E.J.: Policy stakeholders and deployment of wind power in the sub-national context: A comparison of four U.S. states. Energy Policy 38, 4429–4439 (2010).
155. Galbraith K. and Price A.: The Great Texas Wind Rush (University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 2013).
156. Lasher W.P.: 2008. The development of competitive renewable energy zones in Texas, Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, 2008. T&D. IEEE/PES. IEEE, pp. 1–4. Chicago, IL April 21–24. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4517254.
157. Esposito M.J., Russell C., and Levy H.L.: School of Law Wildcatting for Wind the Texas Experience from Turbine to Market. University of Texas School of Law, Continuing Legal Education in cooperation with Kestrel Filmworks, 2007.
158. Slattery M.C., Lantz E., and Johnson B.L.: State and local economic impacts from wind energy projects: Texas case study. Energy Policy 39(12), 7930–7940 (2011).
159. Kimmell K. and Stalenhoef D.S.: Cape wind offshore wind energy project: A case study of the difficult transition to renewable energy. Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 5, 197 (2011).
160. Firestone J., Kempton W., Lilley M.B., and Samoteskul K.: Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 55(10), 1369–1386 (2012).
161. Firestone J., Kempton W., Lilley M.B., and Samoteskul K.: Public acceptance of offshore wind power: Does perceived fairness of process matter? J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 55(10), 1387–1402 (2012).
162. Pasqualetti M.J.: Opposing wind energy landscapes: A search for common cause. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101(4), 907–917 (2011).
163. U.S. Census Bureau: Income: State Median Income (U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2015).
164. Bolinger M.: Community Wind Power Ownership Schemes in Europe and Their Relevance to the United States, Environmental Energy Technology Division ed.; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, 2001.
165. Arent A.: Power. Federal Theatre Project, 1937. http://newdeal.feri.org/power/
166. Jacobson M.Z., Howarth R.W., Delucchi M.A., Scobie S.R., Barth J.M., Dvorak M.J., Klevze M., Katkhuda H., Miranda B., Chowdhury N.A., Jones R., Plano L., and Ingraffea A.R.: Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight. Energy Policy 57, 585–601 (2013).