PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND PARTICIPATION IN WIND TURBINE DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research for this paper was undertaken into the relationship between public opinion on wind power and public participation in turbine site planning and design. The research focussed on the contribution of environmental attitude studies to participatory environmental impact assessment of renewable energy policy and land use. A questionnaire survey was undertaken at wind farm sites at three stages in the site planning process and at three public events where the application of wind power was a topic of discussion. The attitudinal data produced was subjected to a series of statistical tests to determine which of the attitudes revealed could be quantified significantly in terms of public opinion. The most significant responses related to the proximity of wind turbines to respondents' homes with the proposition that wind turbine designers should seek community input of the highest significance. Respondents also indicated a preference for traditional turbine structures that blended in with the landscape and remained out of sight. Respondents' personal perception of land use change regarding wind power near them was mostly significant relative to respondent age with younger respondents tending to be more accepting of wind turbine land use whilst older respondents objected. Living place was also found to be significant with urban respondents more accepting of wind power than rural ones. Fundamentally respondents although polarised for or against on certain issues, all shared a wish for more public input and participation in local land use for wind power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".