IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v12y2008i4p1129-1147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences?

Author

Listed:
  • Toke, David
  • Breukers, Sylvia
  • Wolsink, Maarten

Abstract

This paper aims to understand different outcomes of implementation of wind power deployment programmes. Geographical variables such as quantity of wind resources are in themselves insufficient to explain patterns of implementation of wind power. To enhance the review of the factors affecting wind power deployment we also made a systematic comparison of six country cases: Denmark, Spain, Germany, Scotland, the Netherlands, and England/Wales. The impact of four key institutional variables is examined and put into a scheme of a set of potential hypothesis about their inter-relationships. These are influenced by different national traditions: planning systems; financial support mechanisms; landscape protection organisations and patterns of ownership of wind power. (1) Planning systems, which favour wind power are essential, and in all cases national planning policies generally intend to support wind power development, but planning institutions show a wide variety with clear differences in implementation results. (2) Systems of financial support are also a sine qua non for development but they also vary in their effectiveness across country and time in the study. Robust and consistent support regimes in Denmark, Germany and Spain have speeded developments. (3) Landscape protection organisations vary in strength in a range between England/Wales (very strong and influential) to Spain (non-existent). Strong and effective opposition to wind developments is always primarily rooted in landscape values. (4) Local ownership patterns coincide with higher rates of wind power deployment than remote, corporate ownership. Local involvement recruits conditional support for projects and is related to traditions of energy activism. Such traditions are strongest in Denmark and Germany and weakest in Spain, England/Wales and Scotland.

Suggested Citation

  • Toke, David & Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2008. "Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1129-1147, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:12:y:2008:i:4:p:1129-1147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364-0321(06)00162-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    2. Szarka, Joseph, 2006. "Wind power, policy learning and paradigm change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3041-3048, November.
    3. Toke, Dave, 2005. "Explaining wind power planning outcomes:: some findings from a study in England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 1527-1539, August.
    4. Eckart Lange & Sigrid Hehl-Lange, 2005. "Combining a participatory planning approach with a virtual landscape model for the siting of wind turbines," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 833-852.
    5. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    6. Söderholm, Patrik & Ek, Kristina & Pettersson, Maria, 2007. "Wind power development in Sweden: Global policies and local obstacles," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 365-400, April.
    7. Meyer, Niels I. & Koefoed, Anne Louise, 2003. "Danish energy reform: policy implications for renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 597-607, June.
    8. Peter Strachan & David Lal, 2004. "Wind Energy Policy, Planning and Management Practice in the UK: Hot Air or a Gathering Storm?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(5), pages 549-569.
    9. Loiter, Jeffrey M. & Norberg-Bohm, Vicki, 1999. "Technology policy and renewable energy: public roles in the development of new energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 85-97, February.
    10. Wolsink, Maarten, 1996. "Dutch wind power policy : Stagnating implementation of renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(12), pages 1079-1088, December.
    11. Nadai, Alain, 2007. ""Planning", "siting" and the local acceptance of wind power: Some lessons from the French case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2715-2726, May.
    12. Dave Toke, 2005. "Are green electricity certificates the way forward for renewable energy? An evaluation of the United Kingdom’s Renewables Obligation in the context of international comparisons," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 23(3), pages 361-374, June.
    13. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    14. Reijnders, L., 2002. "Imports as a major complication: liberalisation of the green electricity market in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 723-726, July.
    15. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    16. Faulin, Javier & Lera, Fernando & Pintor, Jesus M. & Garcia, Justo, 2006. "The outlook for renewable energy in Navarre: An economic profile," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2201-2216, October.
    17. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:12:y:2008:i:4:p:1129-1147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.