Bird Killer, Industrial Intruder or Clean Energy? Perceiving Risks to Ecosystem Services Due to an Offshore Wind Farm

Handle URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10754/625689
Title:
Bird Killer, Industrial Intruder or Clean Energy? Perceiving Risks to Ecosystem Services Due to an Offshore Wind Farm
Authors:
Klain, Sarah C.; Satterfield, Terre; Sinner, Jim; Ellis, Joanne ( 0000-0002-2625-4274 ) ; Chan, Kai M.A.
Abstract:
Proposals to develop renewable energy technologies may threaten local values, which can generate opposition. Efforts to explain this opposition have focused on perceived negative aesthetic and environmental impact. Less attention has been paid to a fuller suite of the perceived risks and benefits associated with new energy technologies. This paper thus investigates impacts of an offshore wind farm pertaining to individual perceptions and judgments, and why risks to some ecosystem services might be cause for greater public concern than others. We find that this difference can be attributed to the affective and intuitive ways in which people perceive risk. Our mixed-methods design used interviews (n=27) that involved risk-benefit weighting tasks and an animated visualization to help people imagine an offshore wind farm in a familiar place. We found that affectively-loaded impacts (harm to charismatic wildlife and visual intrusion) were assigned greater weight than more easily quantifiable impacts (displacement of fishing, impact to tourism, cost of compliance with regulations). Interviewees identified increased regional energy self-sufficiency as the most valued potential benefit of an offshore wind farm. These results have implications for ecosystem service assessments generally and, more specifically, for our understanding of ‘affective’ dimensions of development proposals.
KAUST Department:
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Citation:
Klain SC, Satterfield T, Sinner J, Ellis JI, Chan KMA (2018) Bird Killer, Industrial Intruder or Clean Energy? Perceiving Risks to Ecosystem Services Due to an Offshore Wind Farm. Ecological Economics 143: 111–129. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.030.
Publisher:
Elsevier BV
Journal:
Ecological Economics
Issue Date:
19-Jul-2017
DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.030
Type:
Article
ISSN:
0921-8009
Sponsors:
We thank Cawthron Institute for their collaboration made possible with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) funding for this work (contract MAUX1208). We also thank members of the Connecting Human and Natural Systems lab group for useful feedback on early drafts. Evan Jones provided essential animation assistance. We also thank the following research assistants: Ruaridh Davies, Jakob Öberg, Allison Thompson, Calum Watt and Adrian Semmelink.
Additional Links:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916313854
Appears in Collections:
Articles

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKlain, Sarah C.en
dc.contributor.authorSatterfield, Terreen
dc.contributor.authorSinner, Jimen
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Joanneen
dc.contributor.authorChan, Kai M.A.en
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-03T12:49:34Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-03T12:49:34Z-
dc.date.issued2017-07-19en
dc.identifier.citationKlain SC, Satterfield T, Sinner J, Ellis JI, Chan KMA (2018) Bird Killer, Industrial Intruder or Clean Energy? Perceiving Risks to Ecosystem Services Due to an Offshore Wind Farm. Ecological Economics 143: 111–129. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.030.en
dc.identifier.issn0921-8009en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.030en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/625689-
dc.description.abstractProposals to develop renewable energy technologies may threaten local values, which can generate opposition. Efforts to explain this opposition have focused on perceived negative aesthetic and environmental impact. Less attention has been paid to a fuller suite of the perceived risks and benefits associated with new energy technologies. This paper thus investigates impacts of an offshore wind farm pertaining to individual perceptions and judgments, and why risks to some ecosystem services might be cause for greater public concern than others. We find that this difference can be attributed to the affective and intuitive ways in which people perceive risk. Our mixed-methods design used interviews (n=27) that involved risk-benefit weighting tasks and an animated visualization to help people imagine an offshore wind farm in a familiar place. We found that affectively-loaded impacts (harm to charismatic wildlife and visual intrusion) were assigned greater weight than more easily quantifiable impacts (displacement of fishing, impact to tourism, cost of compliance with regulations). Interviewees identified increased regional energy self-sufficiency as the most valued potential benefit of an offshore wind farm. These results have implications for ecosystem service assessments generally and, more specifically, for our understanding of ‘affective’ dimensions of development proposals.en
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank Cawthron Institute for their collaboration made possible with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) funding for this work (contract MAUX1208). We also thank members of the Connecting Human and Natural Systems lab group for useful feedback on early drafts. Evan Jones provided essential animation assistance. We also thank the following research assistants: Ruaridh Davies, Jakob Öberg, Allison Thompson, Calum Watt and Adrian Semmelink.en
dc.publisherElsevier BVen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916313854en
dc.subjectRisk Perceptionen
dc.subjectPsychometric Risk Paradigmen
dc.subjectEcosystem Servicesen
dc.subjectRenewable Energyen
dc.subjectOffshore Wind Farmen
dc.subjectEnvironmental Impactsen
dc.titleBird Killer, Industrial Intruder or Clean Energy? Perceiving Risks to Ecosystem Services Due to an Offshore Wind Farmen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabiaen
dc.identifier.journalEcological Economicsen
dc.contributor.institutionCollege of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Oregon State University, 104 CEOAS Administration Building, 101 SW 26th St, Corvallis, OR 97331, USAen
dc.contributor.institutionInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canadaen
dc.contributor.institutionCawthron Institute, Private Bag 2, Nelson, New Zealanden
kaust.authorEllis, Joanneen
All Items in KAUST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.