User Tools

Site Tools


research:rural_areas:common_methodology:analysis

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
research:rural_areas:common_methodology:analysis [2016/12/05 18:23]
marike.hebrank
research:rural_areas:common_methodology:analysis [2017/02/02 16:48] (current)
admin
Line 1: Line 1:
-Rafael Marike Leon Marco 
- 
- 
-//This whole page is written very nice.// :-D 
- 
 ====== Method of Analysis ====== ====== Method of Analysis ======
  
 The analysis of the results consists of two parts. The analysis of the results consists of two parts.
 In a first step, a frequency analysis is performed. In this way, the response rate of each individual question is assessed, making the identification of major trends possible. Moreover, the results of the 2016 survey are juxtaposed to those of 2005. This allows identifying potential development and changes over time.  In a first step, a frequency analysis is performed. In this way, the response rate of each individual question is assessed, making the identification of major trends possible. Moreover, the results of the 2016 survey are juxtaposed to those of 2005. This allows identifying potential development and changes over time. 
-([[research:rural_areas:common_results:results1#Frequency Analysis|Click here to jump directly to the respective results]]) :-) //good use of internal links//+([[research:rural_areas:common_results:results1#Frequency Analysis|Click here to jump directly to the respective results]]) 
    
 Furthermore, a qualitative analysis of the received comments in the open answers was conducted, providing the major trends within the comments. Furthermore, a qualitative analysis of the received comments in the open answers was conducted, providing the major trends within the comments.
 ([[research:rural_areas:common_results:results1#Frequency Analysis|Click here to jump directly to the respective results]])  ([[research:rural_areas:common_results:results1#Frequency Analysis|Click here to jump directly to the respective results]]) 
  
-In a second step, the results of 2016 are evaluated with the intention of receiving further insights on the factors shaping the respondents' opinion on wind energy. However, such answer is not easily found through simply asking one question in a questionnaire as most interviewees do not know themselves exactly what makes their mind. Therefore different methods are used here in an attempt of understanding better this complex issue: subsampling, correlation analysis and statistical hypothesis test.+In a second step, the results of 2016 are evaluated with the intention of receiving further insights on the factors shaping the respondents' opinion on wind energy. However, such answer is not easily found through simply asking one question in a questionnaire as most interviewees do not know themselves exactly what makes their mind. Therefore different methods are used here in an attempt of understanding better this complex issue: subsampling, correlation analysis and statistical hypothesis test. This step was based on the findings of the synopsis' findings on the most considered factors ([[:literature_review#2. Factors|factors identfied in literature review]]) and thus also served as a preliminary empirical verification of literature's statements. The cited sources in this methodology thus all were part of the analysed literature.
  
 ===== Statistical Analysis - Subsampling and Correlation Analysis ===== ===== Statistical Analysis - Subsampling and Correlation Analysis =====
Line 19: Line 14:
 In the first place, subsampling was applied in order to identify the existence of a group of particular attitude, e.g. NIMBY, and to better understand the reasons behind the level of acceptance of specific groups within the sample. Thus, by creating a subsample of the responses from either the group of opponents or of supporters of wind energy, an analysis of their singular reasons was possible. In the first place, subsampling was applied in order to identify the existence of a group of particular attitude, e.g. NIMBY, and to better understand the reasons behind the level of acceptance of specific groups within the sample. Thus, by creating a subsample of the responses from either the group of opponents or of supporters of wind energy, an analysis of their singular reasons was possible.
  
-Secondly, for correlation analysis, hypotheses were created based on the results of the previously created synopsis, so that they represent a selection of the main factors of influence on social acceptance from literature. The factors were selected according to the availability of suitable questions in the questionnaire that allowed the respective analysis. The analysed factors were: landscape destruction, the factor of distance (Euclidian and perceived), supply of information, timing of information and direct benefits. The hypotheses are that the acceptance level depends on:+Secondly, for correlation analysis, hypotheses were created based on the results of the previously created synopsis, so that they represent a selection of the main factors of influence on social acceptance from literature. Following this selection, the factors were chosen according to the availability of suitable questions in the questionnaire that allowed the respective analysis. The analysed factors were: landscape destruction, the factor of distance (Euclidian and perceived), supply of information, timing of information and direct benefits. The hypotheses are that the acceptance level depends on:
  
   * Perception of the destruction of the landscape by wind farms;   * Perception of the destruction of the landscape by wind farms;
Line 35: Line 30:
 === 1) Beyond ‘Not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) === === 1) Beyond ‘Not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) ===
  
-The ‘Not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) term is widely used within wind energy literature (e.g. [[#Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.|Aitken 2010]], [[#Wolsink, M 2000, 'Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support, Renewable Energy, vol. 21, pp. 49–64.| Wolsink 2000]], [[#Cohen, J.J., Reichl, J.,Schmidthaler, M.,2014, 'Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: a critical review', Energy, vol. 76, pp. 4–9.|Cohen et al.2014]] and see also [[research:literature_review#i) NIMBY and beyond|results of literture review]]). The term describes the phenomenon of people who are generally not against wind energy and renewable energies but are opposing its development on the local level. They are thus against wind energy as soon as it interferes with their personal surrounding, described metaphorically with the term 'backyard' ([[#Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.|Aitken 2010]]). More recently, this term has been criticised as a simplistic understanding of this phenomenon that actually hinders the understanding of the reasons and motivations of the people by merely blaming their ignorance (e.g.[[#Burningham, K, Barnett,J, Thrush,D 2006, 'The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review', Working Paper 1.3, School of Environment and Development/University of Manchester, Manchester.|Burningham et al. 2006]], [[#van der Horst, D 2007, 'NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies', Energy Policy, vol. 35, pp. 2705–2714|van der Horst 2007]], [[#Devine-Wright, P 2009, 'Rethinking NIMBYism. The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action,' Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 19(6), pp.426–441.|Devine-+The ‘Not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) term is widely used within wind energy literature (e.g. [[#Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.|Aitken 2010]], [[#Wolsink, M 2000, 'Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support, Renewable Energy, vol. 21, pp. 49–64.| Wolsink 2000]], [[#Cohen, J.J., Reichl, J.,Schmidthaler, M.,2014, 'Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: a critical review', Energy, vol. 76, pp. 4–9.|Cohen et al.2014]] and see also [[:literature_review#i) NIMBY and beyond|factors found in literature review]]). The term describes the phenomenon of people who are generally not against wind energy and renewable energies but are opposing its development on the local level. They are thus against wind energy as soon as it interferes with their personal surrounding, described metaphorically with the term 'backyard' ([[#Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.|Aitken 2010]]). More recently, this term has been criticised as a simplistic understanding of this phenomenon that actually hinders the understanding of the reasons and motivations of the people by merely blaming their ignorance (e.g.[[#Burningham, K, Barnett,J, Thrush,D 2006, 'The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review', Working Paper 1.3, School of Environment and Development/University of Manchester, Manchester.|Burningham et al. 2006]], [[#van der Horst, D 2007, 'NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies', Energy Policy, vol. 35, pp. 2705–2714|van der Horst 2007]], [[#Devine-Wright, P 2009, 'Rethinking NIMBYism. The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action,' Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 19(6), pp.426–441.|Devine-
 Wright 2009]]). Consequently the need for a more complex approach that allows a constructive debate about the topic has been addressed (e.g. [[#Bidwell, D 2013, 'The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards  Wright 2009]]). Consequently the need for a more complex approach that allows a constructive debate about the topic has been addressed (e.g. [[#Bidwell, D 2013, 'The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards 
 commercial wind energy', Energy Policy, vol.58, pp. 189-199.|Bidwell 2013]], [[#Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.|Aitken 2010]]).  commercial wind energy', Energy Policy, vol.58, pp. 189-199.|Bidwell 2013]], [[#Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.|Aitken 2010]]). 
Line 128: Line 123:
  
 ===== References ===== ===== References =====
-FIXME //Layout//+
  
 == Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.== == Aitken, M 2010,' Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature’, Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 1834–1841.==
Line 183: Line 178:
  
 ====== Questions behind the used abbreviations ====== ====== Questions behind the used abbreviations ======
-FIXME //add possible answears.//+ 
 +(For a full overview of the questions, please refer to the {{:questionaire_acceptance_hf_2016.pdf|questionnaire}})
  
 == Q.6 == == Q.6 ==
research/rural_areas/common_methodology/analysis.1480958591.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/12/05 18:23 by marike.hebrank