Placement of Wind Turbines in the Ocean or Delaware Bay . ...... receive compensation when private developers build wind power facilities within public waters?
DELAWARE OPINION ON OFFSHORE WIND POWER
By Jeremy Firestone, Willett Kempton and Andrew Krueger University of Delaware College of Marine and Earth Studies
Final Report January 2008
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE................................................................................................ 5
PART I: PRIOR LITERATURE ON PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT WIND POWER ............ 5
PART II: SURVEY MECHANICS............................................................................................... 7
2.0.
Survey Development and Pilot Testing.............................................................................. 7
2.1.
The Survey Instrument, Sampling, and Survey Administration ........................................ 8
2.2.
Data Coding, Cleaning, and Statistical Analysis................................................................ 9
2.3.
Survey Response, Over-Sampling and Weighting........................................................... 10 PART III: DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY RESULTS...................................................................... 10
3.0.
Placement of Wind Turbines in the Ocean or Delaware Bay .......................................... 10
3.1.
A Delaware “Cape Wind” Offshore Wind Facility.......................................................... 11
3.2.
Perceived Impacts of a Wind Farm .................................................................................. 13
3.3.
Test Facility...................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.
Beach Visit or Tourism Effect ......................................................................................... 20 PART IV: CHOICE EXPERIMENT MODELING RESULTS............................................... 22
4.0.
Stated Preference Theory and Method ............................................................................. 22
4.1.
Experimental Design ........................................................................................................ 22
4.2.
Choice Experiment Modeling Results.............................................................................. 24
4.2.1.
General Preferences for Location.......................................................................... 25
4.2.2.
General Preferences for Wind over Coal and Natural Gas ................................... 27
4.2.3.
Preferences for Offshore Wind Power at Various Distances and Locations Versus Coal and Natural Gas .............................................................................................. 28
4.2.4.
Willingness to Pay for Offshore Wind Power Over Coal or Natural Gas............. 29
4.2.5.
Willingness to Pay (WTP) to Move Turbines Further Offshore ........................... 31 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................................. 39
APPENDIX II................................................................................................................................ 63
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 66
i
Figures Figure 1:
.................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2:
.................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3:
.................................................................................................................................... 32
Table Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
................................................................................................................................... 9
................................................................................................................................. 11
................................................................................................................................. 11
................................................................................................................................. 12
................................................................................................................................. 14
................................................................................................................................. 14
................................................................................................................................. 15
................................................................................................................................. 15
................................................................................................................................. 17
................................................................................................................................. 17
................................................................................................................................. 21
................................................................................................................................. 21
................................................................................................................................. 23
................................................................................................................................. 24
................................................................................................................................. 26
................................................................................................................................. 27
................................................................................................................................. 27
................................................................................................................................. 29
................................................................................................................................. 30
................................................................................................................................. 31
................................................................................................................................. 33
ii
Executive Summary Background • The project has two principal components: (a) a survey of Delaware residents’ opinions regarding offshore wind development and (b) an analysis of Delaware’s present regulatory regime for offshore wind power and options/recommendations for amendments to the same. This report provides analysis of the survey data, and where useful, draws comparisons to other recent surveys of public opinion regarding wind power development off the US coast; a separate regulatory report also is being issued. •
Survey Administration. o In September 2006, we undertook a mail survey of Delaware residents to understand their opinions regarding offshore wind power. Of 1,839 valid mailings to a sample of adult Delaware residents in September and October 2006, 955 were returned completed, a response rate of 51.9%. o The survey was conceived off and undertaken prior to publicity regarding the Bluewater offshore wind proposal and thus measure public opinion without regard to that development proposal. o The survey was sent to what is known as a probability sample. Individuals who were sent the survey were selected based on a random draw. In order to gauge the social acceptance of offshore wind power among those residents most likely to be affected by an offshore wind farm, individuals who live near the Atlantic ocean and Delaware Bay had a greater chance of selection; however within each area that we studied (inland, ocean and Delaware bay), residents had an equal probability of selection. o The survey was constructed to not only measure perceptions of offshore wind farms, but preferences as well. o The survey included written descriptions and photo-simulations of what an offshore wind farm would look like at varying distances.
Key Findings • Survey findings indicate high support for offshore wind power development. Approximately 50 percent of survey respondents believe that offshore wind power development should be “encouraged and promoted” (55% in the ocean or 47% in Delaware Bay), with an additional 35 percent saying that it should be “allowed in appropriate circumstances.” Less than 1 percent indicates that offshore wind power development should be prohibited in all circumstances. •
When asked to choose, more respondents prefer wind power development in the ocean (40%) than in Delaware Bay (16%); the majority (45%) expresses no preference. 1
•
Presented with a verbal description and a photo-simulation of a hypothetical example of a 130 turbine wind farm located 6 miles off the Delaware coast, statewide support is 77.8% while opposition is only 4.2%. Among those who live near the ocean (average approximately 0.6 miles away), supporters command 65% compared to 19.5% for opponents. This question parallels a question from our prior survey on Cape Cod, yet in Delaware it yields strikingly higher support.
•
When asked how the presence of offshore turbines at their regular beach would affect beach visits, 11.4 percent of residents stated they would not visit that same beach, although more than half of that 11.4 percent indicated that they would switch only to another Delaware beach. A much larger percent (83.8%) indicated they were likely to visit a beach previously not visited, for the purpose of seeing offshore turbines.
•
Respondents voted whether they would prefer new power to come from a new 500 turbine wind farm with electricity prices initially higher by $1 - $30 per month or from coal or natural gas (size not specified) with no price increase. Respondents were not provided any information on the comparative environmental impacts of offshore wind power, on one hand, and coal or natural gas, on the other. More than 90% voted for the offshore wind option, even when told they would have to pay more to get it. Fewer than 10 percent voted for expanding coal or natural gas.
•
Assuming Delaware would generate royalties from a wind power project located in public waters, residents were asked how the money should be used. They could choose among the State General Fund, the Green Energy Fund, or a hypothetical Beach Nourishment Fund. A plurality of Delaware residents preferred the Green Energy Fund. However, residents who live within an average of 0.6 miles from the Ocean preferred the Beach Nourishment Fund.
•
The placement of wind turbines off the coast seems to be a visual disamenity for Delaware residents. Wind turbines are more of an aesthetic concern for Ocean and Bay area residents than for inland residents.
•
Because visible ocean wind turbines are a disamenity, there is a preference for moving turbines further offshore, though this preference diminishes once turbines are located beyond about 7-10 miles offshore.
•
Although Delaware residents prefer that turbines be located further offshore, results show strikingly high support for the three wind farms proposed in our questions, even when visible from shore (between 6-12 miles). Moreover, even among ocean area residents, there is a preference for offshore wind power over coal or natural gas, as long as the distance is more than one mile from shore.
2
Implications • Residents’ preferences to move turbines far offshore are weak—while they are willing to pay more to move wind turbines further from shore, concerns over the visual impact of offshore wind power, unless extremely close to shore (1 mile), are overwhelmed by residents’ conclusion that fossil fuel plants are no longer acceptable. •
The high numbers expressing curiosity and desire to visit a beach with a wind farm in view suggest possibilities for new services such as recreational boat trips to tour a wind farm, a tourist-oriented visitor center, and new possibilities for marketing Delaware beaches outside the state. Further insight will be gained from ongoing analysis of a 2007 University of Delaware survey of more than 1000 out-of-state tourists traveling to Delaware beaches —to be analyzed by late 2008.
•
Climate change did not appear to have been a primary driver of public support for offshore wind power in this survey, which was undertaken during fall 2006; with the high degree of media attention devoted to climate change in the past year in light of related federal judicial opinions, decreasing Arctic sea ice, the fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Bali Climate Change conference, a follow-up survey that explores this relationship would be useful.
3
4
Final Report
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This report summarizes analysis of survey work undertaken in response to a November 30, 2004 Green Energy Fund Request For Proposals issued by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Delaware Energy Office. The Energy Office made the award to Jeremy Firestone and Willett Kempton, College of Marine and Earth Studies, University of Delaware, in 2005; however, the project did not commence until February 1, 2006, when matching funds were secured.1 The project has two principal components: (a) a survey of Delaware residents’ opinions regarding offshore wind development and (b) an analysis of Delaware’s present regulatory regime for offshore wind power and options/recommendations for amendments to the same. This report provides analysis of the survey data, and where useful, draws comparisons to other recent surveys of public opinion regarding wind power development off the US coast; a separate regulatory report also is being issued. PART I: PRIOR LITERATURE ON PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT WIND POWER From previous studies on public opinion on wind power projects conducted elsewhere, a number of generalizations and recurring principles arise that help to place public support and opposition to offshore wind power in Delaware in context. These prior results were used to inform the present survey and analysis. NIMBY: One classical hypothesis for opposition of local projects is NIMBY (“not in my backyard”), which has been defined as “an attitude ascribed to persons who object to the siting of something they regard as detrimental or hazardous in their own neighborhood, while by implication raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere” (Simpson & Weiner, 2003, quoted in Kempton et al., 2005, p. 124). Although many people often classify the opposition to wind power development as NIMBY, this is an oversimplification. Devine-Wright (2005) concludes that “the NIMBY concept that has been most frequently used to describe negative perceptions of wind farms has failed to receive empirical support” in the literature, and advocates moving toward a more integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Likewise, we have previously recommended moving away from the use of the NIMBY label because it tends to obscure the true reasons for opposition (Kempton et al. 2005). Importance of ocean and place attachment: An interesting finding in the Kempton et al. (2005) study was that people opposed offshore wind power because it intruded on the ocean as a “special place” where human structures and development do not belong. Somewhat related to 1 This survey was thus conceived and designed prior to current proceedings in Delaware that have resulted in a bid for power from offshore wind. The semi-structured interviews were carried out prior to these proceedings. Further, all surveys were sent out, and almost all returned, before this bid became widely covered in the media.
5
this feeling of uniqueness and special value is the importance of landscape and place attachment (see: Short, 2002; Hoppe-Klipper & Steinhauser, 2002; Schwahn, 2002; Pasqualetti, 2002). Some of these researchers have focused on the cultural importance of landscape protection and aesthetics, and how changes in the local landscape affect public opinion. Schwahn (2002) notes that although there is often general support for wind power, local projects may cause residents to feel “expelled from their homeland,” described as a “public sense of angst brought about by the rapid changes in the landscape that wind power can bring” (ibid; Kempton et al., 2005). Short (2002) notes that developers in the wind industry often fail to “grasp the important links among landscape, memory and beauty in achieving a better quality of life” (Short, 2002, quoted in Kempton et al., 2005, p. 132). A similar analysis by Pasqualetti (2002) offers insights into public opposition to wind power development in the San Gorgonio Pass, California. Although that particular area was suitable for wind power and somewhat unsuitable for other types of development, there existed considerable local opposition toward wind power development. Pasqualetti attributes much of this opposition to what he calls “landscape permanence”—the notion that wind turbines will convert the desert area into “an industrial landscape,” thereby violating residents’ expectations that the desert landscape will remain forever unchanged (ibid; Kempton et al., 2005). Kempton et al. (2005) argue the same feelings can be present among coastal residents for the preservation of the seascape, and that on a deeper level, “there appears to be something special about the ocean, a feeling which for many people underpins their opposition to the [Cape Wind] project” (p. 132). Acceptance through time: Other explanations for public acceptance of wind power from the literature are that (1) acceptance follows a “U” shape (it is high at the conceptual stage of a project, opinion bottoms-out during construction, and then returns to initial levels after operation begins) and (2) that negative perceptions for projects decrease over time due to increased public experience. Various longitudinal studies in different countries, conducted prior to development of a wind project and continuing some years after operation have shown that negative perceptions of local residents toward a wind farm declined over time, or that residents become more supportive following construction (see Devine-Wright, 2005; Gipe, 1995; Wolsink, 1989; Krohn & Damborg, 1999; Walker, 1995). For example, Wolsink (1989) concluded that approval of wind farms improves post-construction, and Gipe (1995) reported initially high levels of public support for a Dutch wind farm, followed by a decrease in support during the planning and construction phases of the project, with recovery to almost initial levels of support once the project was built and operational (Devine-Wright, 2005; Gipe, 1995 cited by Krohn & Damborg, 1999). Dynamic nature of public opinion suggests DE public opinion should be re-visited: The findings on acceptance through time indicate that support or opposition for any specific project is dynamic and should be reported over different phases of the planning, construction, and operation periods. Give the high visibility of the Bluewater project over the past year, we recommend that a follow-up survey be undertaken. Stakeholder participation in project and process: Financial incentives and benefits and stakeholder participation in the planning and development process are factors that may influence public acceptance of wind farms. Financial participation can take the form of partial local ownership of the wind turbines or of public and private lands where a wind farm will be located. 6
(Jobert et al., 2007). Van der Loo (2001) has identified PIMBY (Please In My Backyard) syndrome—the opposite of NIMBY—which occurs when individuals want wind turbines to be placed on their property in order to act as a source of income. PART II: SURVEY MECHANICS 2.0. Survey Development and Pilot Testing There were two phases of the data collection: a semi-structured interview conducted faceto-face with a small sample; and then a written survey mailed to a sample of Delaware residents. During February and early March 2006, we developed a semi-structured interview protocol. The semi-structured interview process was a check on issues or perspectives we needed to include in the survey--that may have been new or specific to Delaware. We drew on the results and experience gained from both semi-structured interviews and a survey in Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Kempton, et al. 2005; Firestone et al 2007) and from interviews and observation of hearings in New Jersey in our design of the semi-structure interview protocol and the Delaware survey instrument (some questions paralleled questions in the Cape Cod survey instrument to facilitate a comparison between the two survey results, while other questions went off in new directions). The Cape Cod interviews related to the controversial Cape Wind Nantucket Sound Wind Farm proposal, while the New Jersey interviews occurred in parallel with a series of lightly publicized public meetings convened by the NJ Blue Ribbon Panel on Offshore Wind Power.2 In contrast, until the fall 2006, there had been little, if any, public debate on offshore wind power in Delaware. As a result, the Delaware semi-structured interview protocol was designed to assess not only the state of knowledge and existing views, but in addition, how the provision of factual information on offshore wind power might affect views. Between March 23, 2006 and May 15, 2006, twelve in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts were analyzed to discover common themes and areas of agreement and disagreement. Based on the earlier Cape Cod survey results (Firestone and Kempton, 2007), the findings of the semi-structured interviews, and a review of the literature in the area, as noted above, 49 survey questions were developed. Some specific questions from the Cape Cod survey instrument were included for comparison purposes. After numerous draft iterations, the survey instrument was pilot tested at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office in Wilmington, Delaware on June 29-30, 2006. The DMV was selected as the pilot location because the individuals who frequent the office represent a wide cross-section of the population. Individuals were surveyed coming in and out of the entrance to the building and while waiting in the inspection line. After they answered the written questions, they were verbally queried regarding survey comprehension, length and any perceived bias. In particular, the pilot test was critical to ensure that the choice experiment (CE) section of the survey was understandable and realistic, that the attributes chosen (and the range of their corresponding levels) were appropriate, and that
2 Phil Whitaker conducted the New Jersey and Delaware semi-structured interviews, which he intends to report in his Masters Thesis in Marine Policy at UD CMES.
7
the questions were producing usable data. To this end, extensive time and effort was spent developing, reviewing, and testing the CE section. Eighty-two pilot-test surveys were completed at the DMV. Based on the queries during the pilot test, the survey instrument was modified slightly. In all, between May and September 2006, the survey went through nineteen iterations before the final survey instrument was produced. Protocol for survey construction, pilot testing, and administration followed Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000) as closely as possible, given certain time and budget constraints. 2.1. The Survey Instrument, Sampling, and Survey Administration The survey has four general sections (See Appendix 1). The first section asks respondents about their attitudes and opinions concerning wind power and the possibility of having offshore wind power in Delaware. The second section contains three “choice experiment” questions in which respondents are asked to choose among different offshore wind power scenarios. The third section gathers data on respondents’ beach-going habits in Delaware, and how those beach-going habits might change with the presence of a visible wind farm off the coast. The fourth section elicits demographic data for statistical analysis of the survey responses. Most of Delaware’s population (520,000 or 63%) lives in New Castle County, over ninety miles from Delaware’s Atlantic Coastline. Delaware’s entire Atlantic coastline (approximately 24 miles) is located within Sussex County, while both Kent and Sussex Counties front the Delaware Bay. In order to evaluate Delaware residents as a whole, as well as coastal residents as a separate group, we sampled the whole state, but over-sampled coastal areas of Kent and Sussex Counties (using census tract and block data). A random stratified sample was drawn from three areas (strata), which we call here “Bay,” “Ocean” and “Inland.” Table 1 provides the particulars. A sampling firm3 drew a probability sample of names and addresses from a unified list that is based upon disparate public records such as drivers’ licenses and voting registrations. As can be seen in Table 1, the sampling strategy resulted in an Ocean area with individuals who live on average less than a mile to the beach, and a Bay area with individuals living on average four miles to the beach. Post-sampling, we bi-furcated the Inland area into two categories for further analysis: (a) those individuals who indicated that they owned a beach house or that the closest distance to the beach was less than 4 miles (“Second Home”) and (b) those inland residents who did not own a coastal home (“No Coastal Home”). The survey was printed in booklet form, with a cover depicting a coastline and lighthouse with the words “What will the future hold?”, intended to avoid any explicit reference to the subject matter (to reduce self-selection sampling bias), yet to engage the recipient to open the booklet and to begin. Between September 18th and 20th 2006, a survey packet was mailed to 2000 members of the Delaware population. Each survey packet contained a cover letter, the survey instrument, photo simulations of what an offshore wind farm might look like at various distances 3 The firm was Survey Sampling International. See http://www.surveysampling.com.
8
from shore, and a map broadly depicting three potential wind farm locations [Bay, Ocean (north) and Ocean (south)]. Each survey instrument was marked with an identification number. Three weeks later, reminder postcards were sent to the entire sample, and then, between October 28th and 30th, approximately 1250 survey packets were re-sent to those individuals who had not yet returned their completed surveys. Of the 2000 mailings, 161 were undeliverable or the addressee had deceased or was otherwise incapacitated while 955 were returned completed, for a response rate of 51.9% (this compares favorably to the 38.5% response rate achieved with the Cape Cod survey). See Table 1 for a breakdown of survey responses analyzed by area (strata).4 Table 1: Area Sampled (Strata) Bay
Ocean
Inland
Areas sampled and post-sampling stratification, showing sample size of each Average Completed Distance Sample Census Surveys Description to Beach Size (n) Tracts/Blocks Analyzed (miles) Slaughter Beach; Fowlers 501.03 203 4 400 Beach; Prime Hook 509 (1) (2) Beach; Broadkill Beach Rehoboth Beach; Dewey 511 182 0.6 400 Beach; Bethany Beach; 512 South Bethany; Fenwick All remaining 564 census tracts All of Delaware, NA 1200 excluding the above. and blocks in Delaware Post-Stratification of Inland
Second Home
111
Varies
Own Second Home
2.47
453
Varies
Inland
47.15
1200 No Coastal Home
2.2. Data Coding, Cleaning, and Statistical Analysis Survey responses were coded and entered by two coders between October and December, 2006. Each coder cross-checked the data entered by the other coder for fifty random survey questionnaires to identify any inconsistencies. The data were analyzed using the STATA 9.0 statistical software. STATA 9.0 was selected because it can account for complex survey design (stratification and cluster sampling) in computing standard errors of estimates, and can weight 4 Six completed surveys were postmarked after the date that bids for additional power in the State were filed and were not received until after January 1, 2007. They are not included in the statistical analysis presented here.
9
cases to balance disproportionate stratified samples. The NLOGIT 3.0 software was used for econometric modeling of the choice experiment question data. 2.3. Survey Response, Over-Sampling and Weighting As noted above, we over-sampled the Ocean and Bay regions. As a result, when examining Delaware opinion statewide, we weighted each response by the inverse of the probability that it was included. We also weighted the sample due to response biases. Survey respondents were more likely to be male, older, and wealthier than the population being studied (those members of the Delaware population who are over 19 years of age). These biases are not uncommon in survey research (Firestone and Kempton, 2007). Thus, the underrepresented demographic groups were weighted more heavily, so that the resulting statewide sample demographics mirror population demographics. Inland, Bay, and Ocean areas were weighted in the following manner: •
We weighted the Inland sample so that it would match the age, sex, and income demographics of the State, as the Inland area includes eighty-nine percent of Delaware households, and thus likely follows statewide demographics closely.
•
We individually weighted the Ocean and Bay samples to match statewide gender demographics only. Because these areas represent such a small percentage of the Delaware population and because age and income demographics of these areas may be significantly different than the state as a whole, we only weighted based on sex.
PART III: DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY RESULTS Here, we report on answers to several key survey questions, not necessarily in the order asked. We detail answers to questions regarding (1) the placement of wind turbines in the ocean and/or Delaware Bay; (2) support or opposition for the Cape Wind facility should it be built off the Delaware coast rather than off of Cape Cod; (3) support or opposition of a “test facility” of two or three turbines; (4) the effect of wind turbines on beach visitation behavior; and (5) to the extent any rents or royalties are generated, the preference for where those funds should be dedicated and deposited. Analysis of the choice experiment data and whether respondents voted for offshore wind over expansion of coal or natural gas power is presented in Part 3. 3.0. Placement of Wind Turbines in the Ocean or Delaware Bay As seen in Table 2, there is strong support for offshore wind power among Delaware residents. When residents statewide are asked about rules for wind turbines in the ocean, more than 90 percent want the state to either encourage and promote them or allow them in appropriate circumstances, while less than one percent would prohibit them from the ocean. For ocean area residents, support also is very strong, although opposition increases from 0.7 to 6.4 percent. We asked separately about wind turbines in Delaware Bay, which is supported by an overwhelming
10
91.7%, slightly less than in the ocean. Again, opposition increases among those living closer to where the turbines will be placed, with 11.4% of bayside residents opposed. When subsequently asked to choose between placing turbines in the ocean or the Bay, the majority of Delawareans expressed no preference, with 31.6 percent preferring the ocean and 16.3 percent preferring the Bay (Table 3). Table 2: Placement of wind turbine in the Ocean (N=937) or Bay (N= 938) Turbines Placed Out on the Ocean Sample Area Policy Encouraged and Promoted Allowed in Appropriate Circumstances Tolerated Prohibited in all instances Not Sure
Turbines Placed In Delaware Bay
Statewide (%)
Ocean (%)
Statewide (%)
Bay (%)
55.3 36.7 3.1 0.7 4.2
49.1 33.3 6.6 6.4 4.6
47.3 39.1 5.3 2.7 5.2
40.4 38.4 1.7 11.4 8.0
Table 3:
Responses to survey question #7: If Delaware decided to develop wind power for electricity generation, where would you prefer the wind turbines be located? (N=925) Overall Inland Bay Ocean In the ocean 39.5% 31.5% 40.4% 37.6% In Delaware Bay 15.6% 16.4% 10.8% 22.0% No preference 44.9% 52.1% 48.8% 40.4%
3.1. A Delaware “Cape Wind” Offshore Wind Facility In order to provide a close comparison to our prior study of opinion in the Cape Cod area, we matched questions and provided visual information in the Delaware survey that most Cape Cod residents would have received as part of public debate. Delaware residents also were given a description of the proposed Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and asked whether they would support or oppose the same project if it were instead moved off of the Delaware coast. The description on the questionnaire was: “A private developer has proposed to place 130 wind turbines that stand 423 feet high out on the ocean off of Cape Cod, Massachusetts for electricity generation. The project would be approximately 6 miles from the nearest coastal town. For questions 9-13, suppose this project were instead developed off the Delaware coast.” The results, provided in Table 4, indicate that an offshore wind farm is likely to garner significant support throughout the state. Statewide, support registers 18 times as much as opposition, 77.8% supporting versus 4.2% opposed. This question is further broken down by 11
residence location and whether they own a coastal home. Even for residents of the ocean area (where respondents live on average approximately 0.6 miles from the coast), support outnumbers opposition 3 to 1. And of those individuals who live in the inland portion of the state, “Second Home” beach house owners are as supportive as those individuals who do not own a beach house (labeled “No Coastal Home” in Table 4). That is, one is more likely to oppose only if one’s primary residence is near the coast, not if one owns a second home near the coast. Because respondents also were asked who supplied their electricity (Delmarva Power and Light, Delaware Electric Cooperative, or a city or town municipal utility), we are able to analyze the results by electric supplier. We find no significant difference among electric suppliers—support by utility was, Delmarva Power customers 77.7%; municipals 80.0%; and Delaware Electric Coop 77.7%. Most Delaware residents, 82.5% are Delmarva Power customers, with municipals 8% and DEC 9.5%. Table 4:
Support Oppose Unsure
Support for 130 turbine wind farm 6 miles from the coast Areas/Populations of Delaware Second-home Statewide Ocean Bay No Coastal Home at beach (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 77.8 65.0 73.5 79.0 77.9 4.2 19.5 9.0 3.5 4.0 18.0 15.5 17.5 17.5 18.1
A statistical model was constructed to look more closely at demographic factors that might explain support or opposition in Delaware. Because of the overwhelming statewide support, there was little variance in the statewide sample and thus it was more difficult to determine causal variables. Thus, we confined this analysis to Ocean area respondents only. None of the variables in the model (sex, income, age, education, whether had previously seen a wind turbine, whether could see ocean from residence, distance from beach), however, except age, are significant. The positive coefficient on age indicates that those who are older are more likely to support the project.5 The finding about age is opposite to that of Cape Cod area residents (Firestone and Kempton, 2007), whose support for the Cape Wind project decreased with increasing age, at a rate of 3% for each year aged. The reversal of the age relationship in these two locations might be reconciled as follows: In the Cape Cod study, age may function as a proxy for years owning property on the Cape, while older Sussex county residents living near the coast may disproportionately represent retired individuals newly arrived to the State, and thus, both findings supportive of the notion that “place attachment” plays a role in support for offshore wind power. In summary, while support for a Cape Wind-type project in Delaware is high (among inland,
5 The “odds ratio” for the age variable indicates that the odds of support for the project increases by 5.8% as a person ages one year. The odds are calculated as follows: e-0.058x30=0.1755. 0.1755 – 1= 0.824. See Firestone and Kempton, 2007. When examined over a 30 year period, the odds of someone who is 65 years old that will support the project compared to someone who is 35 years old increases by 82.4%.
12
ocean, and bay respondents alike), Ocean area respondents who are older are more likely to support than those who are younger. 3.2. Perceived Impacts of a Wind Farm Respondents also were presented a list of possible impacts of a wind farm and for each, asked if they thought this project would have positive impacts (improve), negative impacts, or no impact at all. Table 5 gives the results, divided by supporters and opponents. As before, this table analyzes only the Ocean area. A large majority of the Ocean area opponents perceive negative impacts to aesthetics (100%), tourism (85%), property values (85%), navigation, bird life, recreational boating and fishing, and the local fishing industry. A much smaller percentage believes there will be an improvement in electricity rates. More opponents see the wind farm as having negative impacts on air quality and climate change than positive impacts, a seemingly implausible belief. Among supporters, a majority in the Ocean area believe the wind power project would have positive effects on electricity rates (78%), air quality (68%), and job creation (57%) and climate change (39% positive, 0% negative). Supporters, like opponents, expect it to have negative impacts on aesthetics (41% negative to 3% positive). Respondents also were asked to write-in the three most important issues in deciding whether they would support or oppose the project. In this task, unlike the prior one, they could write in any issue of concern they wanted, not limited to our categories. Table 6 presents the statewide results by supporters only (given the very small percentage of statewide opponents ~4%, opponents are not presented here). For the Ocean area, both supporters and opponents are shown. As shown in Table 6, Delawareans say that their’ strong support for offshore wind power is based primarily on concerns over electricity rates and air quality. This is true statewide and in the ocean area. Ocean area opponents say they decided against based on aesthetic grounds and concerns over marine life impacts. Interestingly, aesthetics ranks a strong third for Ocean area supporters; however, to the extent Delawareans statewide find offshore wind turbines to have a negative impact on aesthetics (41% negative; only 3% positive, Table 5), they remain supporters of offshore wind power for the other reasons they say most affect their decision (Table 6). Apparently, Delaware residents believe that offshore wind power’s potential positive impacts on electricity rates, climate change and air quality outweigh its anticipated negative impact on aesthetics. Climate change does not appear to have been a primary driver of public support for offshore wind power in this survey, which was undertaken during fall 2006; with the high degree of media attention devoted to climate change in the past year in light of federal judicial opinions related thereto, decreasing Arctic sea ice, the fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Bali Climate Change conference, a follow-up survey that /explores this relationship would be useful.
13
Table 5:
Believed negative and positive impacts of the Delaware Cape Wind project for the Ocean Area by support and opposition Opponents Supporters No Impact/ No Impact/ Item Improve Not Sure Negative Improve Not Sure Negative Local Fishing Industry 2% 39% 58% 19% 76% 5% Tourism 0% 15% 85% 5% 88% 8% Job Creation 11% 81% 8% 57% 42% 2% Air Quality 2% 92% 6% 68% 32% 0% Electricity Rates 26% 66% 8% 76% 23% 1% Aesthetics of view 0% 0% 100% 3% 56% 41% Property Values 0% 15% 85% 9% 81% 10% Marine Life 11% 44% 45% 20% 76% 4% Bird Life 6% 26% 68% 6% 79% 15% Recreational Boating/fishing 0% 39% 61% 8% 77% 14% Reduce Climate Change 2% 87% 8% 39% 61% 0% Navigation Safety 0% 24% 76% 6% 72% 22% Table 6:
Factors reported to most affect decision to support or oppose Delaware Cape Wind Project, (open-ended, ordered by overall statewide rank of Top) Statewide Ocean Area Supporters Supporters’ Opponents’ Top (%) Top (%) Top (%)
Issue Electricity Rates Air Quality Marine Life/Environmental Impacts Jobs/Economic Concerns Recreational Boating and Fishing/Boat Safety Alternative/Renewable Energy Foreign Oil Dependence Aesthetics Global Warming/Climate Stability Fishing Impacts Distance From Shore Tourism Property Values Private Use of Public Lands Other Total* *May not add to 100% due to rounding.
14
29 18 14 7
18 19 6 6
6 0 23 0
6
6
3
4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1
