4.7 Article

Factors affecting public support for forest-based biorefineries: A comparison of mill towns and the general public in Maine, USA

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 301-311

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.016

关键词

Cellulosic biofuels; Forestry; Social acceptability

资金

  1. Forest Bioproducts Research Institute at the University of Maine under National Science Foundation [EPS-0554545]
  2. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station
  3. Center for Research on Sustainable Forests
  4. National Science Foundation [EPS-0904155]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community views toward the risks and benefits of emerging renewable energy technologies are important factors in facility siting decisions and their eventual success. While the actual socioeconomic and biophysical impacts of proposed industrial developments are fraught with uncertainty, understanding public perceptions is critical in managing costs and benefits to local citizens. Here, we explore the social acceptability of forest-based biorefineries in Maine using random utility modeling to identify how project attributes and citizen characteristics interact to affect level of support. Using a statewide sample (Statewide) and a subsample of mill towns (Mill Towns), we found that: (1) in both samples, individual characteristics had similar coefficients and significance levels except for pro-environment attitudes; (2) the coefficients related to the industry's negative attributes were notably different between the two samples, while positive attributes were not; (3) in both samples, positive industry attributes such as producing products from a sustainable resource and increased economic development were the most influential variables in determining the level of support for a new biorefinery in an individual's community; and (4) in general, Mill Town respondents were more accepting of potential negative attributes such as increased levels of truck traffic, odor, noise, and air and water pollution. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据