资源环境科技发展态势分析平台

A systematic and controlled laboratory study was conducted because non-experimental studies of wind energy perceptions have produced diverse findings in disparate settings. Ninety Swiss respondents experienced carefully constructed, calibrated and projected audio-visual simulations in a laboratory setting of two wind park sizes in each of three different settings in Switzerland. They rated each for experiential preference, simulation realism and acceptability. Before the next simulation, respondents were given information about each project's energy production, bird hazards, scale and setting type and again rendered the same ratings. These information sets were mostly stratified to produce a systematic variety of experimental conditions. Respondents then answered other questions about their experiences, concerns and attitudes regarding wind parks. Regression models predicted each of the two types of ratings, both with and without the wind parks' associated information sets. The first regression models employed technical wind park attributes and perceived simulation realism factors. Further models added factors derived from the information sets and respondents' attitudes and opinions. These models showed that affective experiential versus acceptability perceptions have different explanatory composition and are affected differently by information. Simple experiential perceptions contribute to informed acceptability perceptions. Respondents produced lower ratings if they saw simulations as unrealistic, particularly for experiential preferences. Setting types were not reliable predictors across all four rating types. Information and attitudes tended to improve the explanation of acceptability ratings more than they explained experiential ratings. Energy production was a weak factor, and bird hazard information a potent factor, in explaining both experiential and acceptability ratings.