利益相关者对美国城市和偏远社区内潮汐能项目选址的看法

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Lekelia Danielle Jenkins , Ezra Beaver
{"title":"利益相关者对美国城市和偏远社区内潮汐能项目选址的看法","authors":"Lekelia Danielle Jenkins ,&nbsp;Ezra Beaver","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Developers have proposed many in-stream tidal projects, but few commercial-scale devices have moved beyond the planning stages to construction and testing. To better understand social impediments to pilot project siting, this comparative case study was conducted in urban Puget Sound, Washington and remote Iguigig, Alaska. Stakeholder interviews were coded to identify themes about project development. Providing local renewable energy, advancing science and technology, and environmental awareness were perceived benefits, while negative environmental impacts, conflicts with other uses, and unintended consequences were perceived concerns of tidal energy. The major themes were: 1) organizations influence siting in urban areas while residents influence siting in rural areas; 2) stakeholder groups cited the wellbeing of their members to justify their stances on in-stream tidal energy projects; and 3) project siting was more successful where there was a simple and uniform assemblage of stakeholders and views. Stakeholders in the smaller, more uniform community were the most supportive of in-stream tidal energy because of a greater need for energy due to fewer energy options. Thus, siting in remote communities could allow tidal energy development to progress in mutually beneficial ways and help states like Washington and Alaska achieve their renewable energy portfolio goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":"179 ","pages":"Article 106702"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholders' views on siting in-stream tidal energy projects in urban and remote communities in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Lekelia Danielle Jenkins ,&nbsp;Ezra Beaver\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106702\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Developers have proposed many in-stream tidal projects, but few commercial-scale devices have moved beyond the planning stages to construction and testing. To better understand social impediments to pilot project siting, this comparative case study was conducted in urban Puget Sound, Washington and remote Iguigig, Alaska. Stakeholder interviews were coded to identify themes about project development. Providing local renewable energy, advancing science and technology, and environmental awareness were perceived benefits, while negative environmental impacts, conflicts with other uses, and unintended consequences were perceived concerns of tidal energy. The major themes were: 1) organizations influence siting in urban areas while residents influence siting in rural areas; 2) stakeholder groups cited the wellbeing of their members to justify their stances on in-stream tidal energy projects; and 3) project siting was more successful where there was a simple and uniform assemblage of stakeholders and views. Stakeholders in the smaller, more uniform community were the most supportive of in-stream tidal energy because of a greater need for energy due to fewer energy options. Thus, siting in remote communities could allow tidal energy development to progress in mutually beneficial ways and help states like Washington and Alaska achieve their renewable energy portfolio goals.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Marine Policy\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106702\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Marine Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25001174\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25001174","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

开发商已经提出了许多流内潮汐项目,但很少有商业规模的设备能够从规划阶段进入建设和测试阶段。为了更好地了解试点项目选址的社会障碍,这项比较案例研究在华盛顿州的普吉特海湾城市和阿拉斯加州偏远的伊吉格进行。对涉众的访谈进行编码,以确定项目开发的主题。提供当地可再生能源、推进科学技术和提高环保意识是人们所认为的好处,而潮汐能对环境的负面影响、与其他用途的冲突以及意想不到的后果则是人们所认为的担忧。主要主题是:1)组织影响城市地区选址,居民影响农村地区选址;2)利益相关者团体引用其成员的福祉来证明他们对流内潮汐能项目的立场;3)在利益相关者和观点简单统一的情况下,项目选址更成功。更小、更统一的社区的利益相关者最支持流内潮汐能,因为由于能源选择较少,对能源的需求更大。因此,选址在偏远社区可以使潮汐能开发以互利的方式取得进展,并帮助华盛顿州和阿拉斯加州等州实现其可再生能源组合目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stakeholders' views on siting in-stream tidal energy projects in urban and remote communities in the United States
Developers have proposed many in-stream tidal projects, but few commercial-scale devices have moved beyond the planning stages to construction and testing. To better understand social impediments to pilot project siting, this comparative case study was conducted in urban Puget Sound, Washington and remote Iguigig, Alaska. Stakeholder interviews were coded to identify themes about project development. Providing local renewable energy, advancing science and technology, and environmental awareness were perceived benefits, while negative environmental impacts, conflicts with other uses, and unintended consequences were perceived concerns of tidal energy. The major themes were: 1) organizations influence siting in urban areas while residents influence siting in rural areas; 2) stakeholder groups cited the wellbeing of their members to justify their stances on in-stream tidal energy projects; and 3) project siting was more successful where there was a simple and uniform assemblage of stakeholders and views. Stakeholders in the smaller, more uniform community were the most supportive of in-stream tidal energy because of a greater need for energy due to fewer energy options. Thus, siting in remote communities could allow tidal energy development to progress in mutually beneficial ways and help states like Washington and Alaska achieve their renewable energy portfolio goals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Marine Policy
Marine Policy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
13.20%
发文量
428
期刊介绍: Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信