All's fair in love and WAR: The conduct of wind acceptance research (WAR) in the United States and Canada
All's fair in love and WAR: The conduct of wind acceptance research (WAR) in the United States and Canada
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.erss.2022.102514
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Douglas L. Bessette;Jessica Crawford
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Douglas L. Bessette;Jessica Crawford
自20世纪80年代以来，美国和加拿大调查社会对风能接受程度的研究数量大幅增加。在此，我们对该期刊上发表的四篇文章进行了风接受研究（WAR）文献的方法学回顾。其中包括兰德和霍恩最近在2017年对战争进行的综合研究，建议更好地将结果纳入开发实践和案例研究的可比性；2020年，Walsh及其同事对非常规油气开发研究中潜在的研究疲劳进行了调查，最后，Sovacool等人在2014年和2018年呼吁增加能源社会科学的理论深度和反思。通过对114篇战争文章的系统回顾和41位通讯作者的在线调查，我们调查了战争研究地点的位置、不同战争设计和激励措施的成功、主导战争的学科和理论，以及最后的传播实践。我们的研究结果表明，在国家调查之外，WAR在地理上集中在远离最高装机容量的地区，并专注于新颖的、有争议的或特定地区独有的项目。我们发现很少有证据支持研究疲劳。此外，大多数战争缺乏基本理论。最后，我们建议对研究地点选择标准进行更大的定性分析，并将现有的WAR理论和WAR与太阳能接受度研究进行更大的整合。最后，我们敦促学者确保并向WAR参与者传达明确的目的、价值和经济利益，并有意义地考虑所研究的更广泛的社区背景。
The number of studies examining social acceptance of wind energy in the United States and Canada has increased considerably since the 1980s. Here we conduct a methodological review of wind acceptance research (WAR) literature in response to four articles published in this journal. These include a recent synthesis of WAR by Rand and Hoen in 2017 recommending better incorporation of results into development practices and comparability of case studies; a 2020 investigation by Walsh and colleagues into potential research fatigue in unconventional oil and gas development research, and finally calls by Sovacool and others in 2014 and 2018 to increase the theoretical depth and reflection in energy social science. Using a systematic review of 114 WAR articles and an online survey of 41 corresponding authors, we investigate the location of WAR study sites, the success of different WAR designs and incentives, the disciplines and theories dominating WAR, and finally dissemination practices. Our results show that, outside national surveys, WAR is geographically concentrated in regions distant from the highest installed capacity and focus on projects that are novel, controversial, or unique to a specific region. We find little support for research fatigue. Additionally, most WAR lacks an underlying theory. We conclude by recommending greater qualitative analysis of study site selection criteria and greater integration of existing WAR theories and WAR with solar acceptance research. Finally, we urge scholars to ensure and communicate a clear purpose, value and financial benefit to WAR participants and meaningfully consider the broader community contexts examined.