IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/poicbe/v13y2019i1p911-919n80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The NIMBY effect towards wind energy instalments in Romania-myth or reality?

Author

Listed:
  • Maassen Maria Alexandra

    (The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

In the past two decades wind energy has become one of the main sources of renewable energy used globally. With the expanding installments of wind turbines and wind parks, several issues have become apparent, especially in terms of closing in to human habitats, but also in terms of damages to the landscape, flora, fauna and other such issues. As more wind turbines are placed in order to achieve the global standards of renewable energy until 2020 and 2030 deadlines, a main issue of the NIMBY effect has also emerged, causing additional pressure on wind energy producers regarding placement, design, height and other elements of the wind turbines. The present study presents current public perceptions of Romanian residents on different placements of wind turbines, as the public becomes more aware of the new type of installments taking place today. Through the Delphi method based on interviews and questionnaires the study reveals current public perceptions and potential perspectives of the NIMBY effect in Romania. A main finding is that most respondents opposed placements of wind turbines in locations, such as residential areas, although wind turbines in Romania are generally placed in remote areas. This result reveals a public perception and consciousness regarding the protection of the human habitats against potential technological sources of discomfort, although renewable energy was perceived as a matter of interest for most participants. The relevance of the study lies in the novelty of the matter, as few studies have referred to NIMBY effects in Romania previously.

Suggested Citation

  • Maassen Maria Alexandra, 2019. "The NIMBY effect towards wind energy instalments in Romania-myth or reality?," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 911-919, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:911-919:n:80
    DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2019-0080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0080
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/picbe-2019-0080?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Broekel, Tom & Alfken, Christoph, 2015. "Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 506-519.
    2. Ek, Kristina & Persson, Lars, 2014. "Wind farms — Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 193-203.
    3. Valentina Mihaela Ghinea & Alina Mihaela Dima & Shahrazad Hadad, 2017. "Excellence Model for Sustainable Convergence in the EU Higher Education," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 19(S11), pages 1107-1107.
    4. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    5. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    6. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. Alphan, H., 2021. "Modelling potential visibility of wind turbines: A geospatial approach for planning and impact mitigation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    3. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Menrad, Klaus, 2017. "Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 63-73.
    4. Jinjin Guan & Harald Zepp, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Maria De Salvo & Sandra Notaro & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Laura Giuffrida & Giovanni Signorello, 2021. "Protecting the Local Landscape or Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions? A Study on Social Acceptance and Preferences towards the Installation of a Wind Farm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    8. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    9. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    10. van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Kelley, Hugh & Jeserich, Nadine, 2015. "What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-22.
    11. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    13. Groth, Theresa M. & Vogt, Christine, 2014. "Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 251-260.
    14. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    15. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    16. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    17. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    18. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    19. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    20. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Hydropower externalities: A meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 66-77.

    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:vrs:poicbe:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:911-919:n:80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.