Do agrivoltaics improve public support for solar? A survey on perceptions, preferences, and priorities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Agrivoltaic systems integrate agricultural production with solar photovoltaic electricity generation. Given the proven technical, economic, and environmental co-benefits provided by agrivoltaic systems, increased proliferation is anticipated, which necessitates accounting for the nuances of community resistance to solar development on farmland and identifying pathways for mitigation. Minimizing siting conflict and addressing agricultural communities’ concerns will be key in continued deployment of agrivoltaics, as localized acceptance of solar is a critical determinant of project success. This survey study assessed if public support for solar development increases when energy and agricultural production are combined in an agrivoltaic system. Results show that 81.8% of respondents would be more likely to support solar development in their community if it integrated agricultural production. This increase in support for solar given the agrivoltaic approach highlights a development strategy that can improve local social acceptance and the deployment rate of solar. Survey respondents prefer agrivoltaic projects that a) are designed to provide economic opportunities for farmers and the local community b) are not located on public property c) do not threaten local interests and d) ensure fair distribution of economic benefits. Proactively identifying what the public perceives as opportunities and concerns related to agrivoltaic development can help improve the design, business model, and siting of systems in the U.S.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it