The Society for Economic Studies
The University of Kitakyushu
Working Paper Series
No.2022-2(accepted in November 17,2022)

Quantitative Evaluation on Community Acceptance ofOffshore Wind Farms:
Evidence from Questionnaire Survey of Iki City
by
Kengo IWATA, Ph.D. Student, Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies,
Kyoto University(Phone: +81-75-753-9167 /Email: iwata.kengo.66r@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp)
Yoshiaki USHIFUSA, Professor, Faculty of Economics, The University of Kitakyushu

1. Introduction
Iwata et al. (2022) mainly analyzed the preferences of Japanese citizens for offshore wind farms (OWF).
Using a mixed logit model, we analyzed whether an antagonistic structure, such as that seen in the green
vs. green debate, emerged. However, no evidence of such a structure was found based on survey data
used in Iwata et al. It is not sufficient to analyze the general public's preferences for OWF in Japan inorder to understand the social acceptance of OWF. Rather, it is necessary to analyze the attitudes andvalues, i.e., community acceptance, toward OWF in the regions where OWF projects are being
considered. Furthermore, in order to understand the determinants of these preferences from multiple
perspectives, hypotheses testing is needed to clarify the reasons for the public's preferences for OWF.
The objective for the research was to understand the reasons for citizens' preferences for OWF frommultiple perspectives, including the determinants of the preference. The result of conducting aquestionnaire survey of the citizens of Iki City and analyzing the data obtained suggests that citizens
were mainly concerned about "marine pollution due to collapse and oil leakage caused by typhoons andtsunamis"; "impact on local industries such as fishing"; and "removal of wind turbines after the projectis completed", with "procedural justice" and "trust" among community acceptance being importantfactors for these concerns. Additionally, it was revealed that local residents' expectations and concerns
about OWF may not be motivated by NIMBYism, but may take public interest into account in a broader
sense.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review related to thisstudy and establishes research questions and hypotheses based on the review. Section 3 provides anoverview of Iki City, the study site. Section 4 provides an overview of the questionnaire survey. Section
5 presents the results obtained from the data analysis. The final section concludes with a discussion of
the results and policy implications.

2. Literature Review
In this section, we review the literature related to this paper and accordingly set the questions andhypotheses for this study.
2.1 NIMBYism, Place Attachment
NIMBY(ism) is an abbreviation of “Not-In-My-Backyard”, which means that people acknowledge theneed for renewable energy facilities for social and public benefits, but do not want them in their own
backyards (i.e., their residential areas or living areas). The concept acknowledges the need for facilities
for social and public benefits, but rejects installation in one's own backyard (i.e., one's residential orliving area) (Kumazawa, 2017).
However, previous studies have shown that NIMBY alone do not fully explain local receptivity to windfarms (Jones and Eiser 2009; Swofford and Slattery 2010; Wolsink 2006; Devine-Wright 2005; Ek 2005).
Since NIMBY is based on so-called Self-Interest motives, even if suitable sites for wind power facilities
are identified from a social perspective, individuals or communities may vote against the project andthus prevent it from being realized if they are disadvantaged. However, there is an emerging academic
consensus that local opposition to wind power cannot be explained solely by self-interest-based
motivations.
This line of argument is called Beyond-NIMBYism, and one representative argument is that it is theresult of considering broader social opportunity costs, rather than simple self-interest. For example,
Söderholm et al. (2007) found in a Swedish study that citizens who preferred "environmental benefits"
over "economic benefits" had more positive attitudes toward wind power than those who resisted
subsidies or taxes on wind power. These studies indicate that opposition to wind power is not only basedon self-interested consequences of local events (e.g., landscape, ecosystem, noise), but that citizens
consider social opportunity costs with respect to wind power planning and implementation in the process
of forming their preferences.
As another perspective of Beyond-NIMBYism, Devine-Wright and Howes (2010) developed anargument using the concept of “Place Attachment”. Place attachment can be defined as a complex
phenomenon involving emotional ties between individuals or groups and the familiar places they live inor have visited, such as their homes or neighborhoods (Low &, Altman 1992). the region compared thereactions/attitudes to an OWF that arose in a coastal town with the responses/attitudes of neighboring
cities to a parallel development. Llandudno is a well-known seaside town with a thriving tourism
industry, a site of geological/archaeological importance, and a famous scenic spot. Colwyn Bay, on theother hand, is a town that is not well received by the local population and considered “run-down” and“forgotten”. These differing values of place were important determinants in shaping reactions andattitudes toward offshore wind turbines. The majority of Llandudno residents considered offshore windturbines to be a major threat to the town and “incredibly harmful”. Meanwhile, the residents of Colwyn
Bay did not perceive the "industrialization" brought about by the offshore wind turbines so negatively.
In other words, this study demonstrated that "place attachment" and social acceptance are inversely
correlated. This is an important point of view that cannot be interpreted only through the conventional
simple analytical lens of NIMBYism. However, a case study in Pennsylvania, USA, showed that "place
attachment" was largely uncorrelated with wind power acceptance (Jacquet and Stedman 2013). No
academic consensus has yet been reached on the relationship between "place attachment" and social
acceptability. Further research on the influence of "place attachment" on acceptance will be needed in
the future.
2.2 Triangle of Social AcceptanceNext, the three dimensions (triangles) of social acceptance proposed by Wüstenhagen et al. and“Community acceptance” in particular are explained in detail, as they are important for this study.
Although "social acceptance" is a term frequently used in academic and practical contexts, it has notbeen clearly defined. Therefore, Wüstenhagen et al. distinguish three dimensions of social acceptanceas shown in Figure 1: socio-political acceptance; community acceptance; and market acceptance. The
distinction between socio-political acceptance, community acceptance, and market acceptance has
contributed to the clarification of the definition of social acceptance (Wüstenhagen et al. 2007).

Figure 1 The triangle of social acceptance of renewable energy innovation.
(Wüstenhagen et al. 2007)

Since this study targets the citizens of Iki City, we consider the issue of community acceptance to be themost important of the three dimensions of social acceptance. Community acceptance refers to thedecision-making and specific acceptability of the installation of renewable energy projects by local
stakeholders, especially residents and municipalities (Ibid., pp 2685). Wüstenhagen et al. also emphasize
three factors and their relative importance in this community acceptance: procedural justice, distributive
justice, and trust.
“Procedural justice” refers to fair procedures for conducting business. Here, it is important whether
there is a fair decision-making process that gives diverse stakeholders the opportunity to participate. In
some areas, it is possible to proceed with the project in collaboration with local stakeholders, but in otherareas, the project may face opposition from the beginning of the planning process, so it is often not astraightforward process. Even when what is implemented in a wind power project is highly beneficial
to the community, there may be unintended consequences if the appropriate steps are not taken (Motosu,
2016).
“Distributive justice” is the question of how costs/risks and benefits are distributed. Taking wind power
generation facilities as an example, while there is concern about the environmental impact of facility
construction, wind power generation offers benefits to the global environment in terms of electricitysales and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, these benefits tend to be enjoyed bycompanies outside the region. As a result, the costs/risks are borne by the region while the benefits flowout of the region, creating an unreasonable and unconvincing situation for the region (Motosu, 2016).
Problems of distributive justice within a region can also be pointed out, i.e., when decisions are madethat are perceived to benefit some people in the community and victimize others. Thus leading to protests,
deterioration of relationships, and community division (Gross, 2007).
“Trust” is the degree to which local citizens and residents trust the information and decisions
communicated by investors and extra-regional actors. Trust is an important issue in all facility location
issues (Wüstenhagen et al. 2007, pp 2687). Perceived justice (fairness) depends largely on how potential
risks are defined, how information about those risks is provided, and who and how they are managed(Owens, 2004). Openness in the business process, flexibility in the decision-making process, andthorough disclosure of information are important to enhance trust, especially when the entity pursuing
the project is external to the community (Wüstenhagen et al. 2007, pp 2687). Furthermore, risk research
has identified the “asymmetry principle”. This suggests that trust is fragile because it usually grows
slowly but can be destroyed rapidly (Slovic, 1993).
2.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses
Based on the above, the research questions for this study are the following. Are citizens' preferences for
OWF due to NIMBYism or are they related to "place attachment"? Furthermore, does it have much to
do with the issues of "procedural justice", "distributive justice", and "trust" included in community
acceptance? In response to this research question, the hypotheses were formulated as follows.
Local residents' preferences for OWF are mainly based on(1) NIMBYism.
(2) “Place attachment”(3) “Procedural justice”(4) “Distributive justice”(5) “Trust”

3. Surveyed sites
This section provides an overview of Iki City, the survey site. Iki City was established on March 1, 2004
through the merger of four towns: Gonoura, Katsumoto, Ashibe, and Ishida. Facing the Genkai Sea, Iki
City is located 76 kilometers northwest of the Port of Hakata in Fukuoka City, with the local port being
the Gonoura Port (Figures 2 and 3). The current population is 25,060 and the number of households is
11,582 (as of September 2022). The climate is warm and maritime, influenced by the warm Tsushima
Current. Compared to northern Fukuoka Prefecture at the same latitude, it is cooler in summer andslightly milder in winter (Iki City, Nagasaki Prefecture, 2022).

Figure 2 Geography of Iki City (Iki City, Nagasaki Prefecture, 2022)

Figure 3 Geography of Iki City (Iki City, Nagasaki Prefecture, 2022)
Iki Island is located in the Genkai Sea, and is rich in sea urchin, turban shell, tuna, and yellowtail. On
land are mainly produced agriculture, rice, strawberries, asparagus, leaf tobacco, and beef cattle (Ikibeef). Iki also has a thriving tourism industry. Because of its easy accessibility, which is only about 60
minutes by high-speed boat from the Port of Hakata in Fukuoka Prefecture, many tourists visit Iki
throughout the year. Especially in summer, many parents, children, and young people visit from all overJapan, including northern Kyushu. Iki is also described as "Iki Island", the fifth birthplace in the mythof the creation of the country in Kojiki, and there are more than 150 shrines scattered around the island,so the entire island is said to be a power spot (Iki Sightseeing Navi, 2022). “Sakyo-bana” at the end of
the Hachiman Peninsula located on the east coast (Figure 4) and “Saru-iwa” at the tip of the Kurosaki
Peninsula (Figure 5) are famous as representative scenic spots of Iki.

Figure 4 Sakyo-bana (photo by author)

Figure 5 Saru-Iwa (photo by author)

4. MethodologyIn this section, the outline of the questionnaire survey is described with reference to Iki City (2021). The
survey was conducted in September 2021 by the Iki City SDGs Future Division, which is the main bodyof the survey, commissioned by Kokusai Kogyo Co. The survey targets citizens of Iki City, aged 20 to80, who are registered as residents of Iki City by the end of August 2021. The number of respondents
was 1,008, and citizens were sampled by random sampling from the Basic Resident Ledger. The survey
period was from September 17 to October 5, 2021, and data were collected by mail distribution andcollection. 455 cases were collected out of 1,008 distributed, resulting in a collection rate of 45.1%. In
this study, in order to verify the research questions and hypotheses presented in section 2.3, we used thedata from the questionnaire survey conducted in Iki City and conducted a cross tabulation analysis.


5. Results
5.1 Individual Attributes
Table 1 shows the results of the gender tabulation. The male-female ratio of the respondents wasapproximately 50% each, indicating that there is almost no gender bias in the sample collection. Table
2 shows the results by age. The largest proportion of respondents were in their 60s (20%) and thesmallest proportion of respondents were in their 20s (9.89%). Overall, however, there is not muchvariation among the age groups, and the sample was able to be drawn from all age groups.
Table 1. Gender tabulation
4

)UHT

3HUFHQW)HPDOH

0DOH





,QYDOLGUHVSRQVHV





7RWDO

Table 2. Composition by Age Group
4

)UHT

3HUFHQW

&XP

V







V







V



V



V







V



,QYDOLGUHVSRQVHV







7RWDO





 

Table 3 shows the results for residential areas. The largest percentage of households is in Gonoura Town,
at 38.46%. The lowest percentage is 14.07% in Ishida Town. Overall, however, there is no significant
variation among the residential districts, and the sample is drawn from all districts. Table 4 summarizes
the number of years of residence of the households. The largest share (46.37%) of the respondents hadlived in their households for more than 20 years, while 38.02% had lived in their households "sincebirth". The total of "less than 1 year" and "more than 1 year to less than 10 years" was 9.01%, indicatingthat many households have remained in Iki City for a long time. Since place attachment is known tocorrelate with the length of residence (Brown & Perkins, 1992), we use this residence duration data asa proxy to test hypothesis 2). Table 5 summarizes the data by occupation. Salaried workers in the private
sector (company employees, company directors, etc.) accounted for the largest share (27.25%), followedby part-time workers (12.75%), government employees and teachers (9.89%), and farmers (9.89%).
Although there was some variation by occupation, this is not considered to be a major problem in thissurvey.

Table 3. Results for residential areas
4

)UHT

3HUFHQW.DWVXPRWRFKR





,VKLGDFKR$VKLEHFKR*RQRXUDFKR

,QYDOLGUHVSRQVHV





7RWDO

Table 4. Duration of residence in Iki City
4

)UHT

3HUFHQW/HVVWKDQ\HDU





0RUHWKDQ\HDUWROHVVWKDQ\HDUV





0RUHWKDQ\HDUVWROHVVWKDQ\HDUV





\HDUVWROHVVWKDQ\HDUV





0RUHWKDQ\HDUV

6LQFHELUWK

,QYDOLGUHVSRQVHV





7RWDO

Table 5. Composition by occupation
4

)UHT

3HUFHQW&RPSDQ\HPSOR\HHFRPSDQ\GLUHFWRUHWF

3DUWWLPHMRE



3XEOLFHPSOR\HHWHDFKHU





$JULFXOWXUH





3HQVLRQHU





6HOIHPSOR\HG





+RXVHZLIH+RXVHKXVEDQG





8QHPSOR\HG





)LVKLQJLQGXVWU\





6WXGHQW

5.2 Awareness of OWF
Question 3 of the survey asked about awareness of OWF. The question asked, “Do you know about
offshore wind power generation, in which wind turbines are installed not on land but on the sea?”, and9.23% of respondents answered "Well aware", while 24.62% answered "Aware", for a total of 33.85%(Table 6, Figure 6). In contrast, 38.9% had "Somewhat aware" and 24.18% had "Don't know", for a totalof 63.08%.
Table 6. Awareness of OWF
4       )UHT

3HUFHQW:HOODZDUH





$ZDUH



6RPHZKDWDZDUH





'RQbWNQRZ

1RDQVZHUV





7RWDO








No answers
3%

Well aware
9%

Don’t know
24%
Aware
25%

Somewhat aware
39%
Well aware

Aware

Somewhat aware

Don’t know

No answers

Figure 6. Awareness of OWF
Next, a crosstabulation analysis of OWF awareness and age structure revealed that the largest percentageof respondents in their 70s (15.85%) answered that they were "familiar" with it, while the largest
percentage of respondents in their 60s (38.46%) answered that they were "mostly familiar" with it. In
contrast, those in their 20s (46.67%) were the most likely to say they did not know about it (Table 7 inAppendix). Next, a crosstabulation analysis of the relationship between the level of awareness of OWF
and gender revealed that a higher percentage of males (15.25% and 33.63%, respectively) were familiar
with OWF, while females (34.5%) were the most likely to respond "don't know" (Table 8 in Appendix).
Furthermore, a crosstabulation analysis of the degree of awareness of OWF and the length of residence
revealed that the percentages of respondents who answered they were familiar with OWF were relatively
high for "since birth" and "20 years or more" (10.4% and 9.48%, respectively), while those who
answered "don't know" were higher for "less than 1 year" and "1 to 5 years" (50% and 9.48%,
respectively). The percentages of respondents who answered "don't know" were higher for those who
had been in the "less than 1 year" and "1-5 years" categories (50% and 41.67%, respectively)(Table 9
in Appendix). These results suggest that gender (male), older age, and longer length of residency in thearea imply a higher level of awareness of OWF power generation.
5.3 Expectations from the introduction of OWF
In Q4-1, we asked what is expected from the introduction of OWF power generation. When asked,“What do you think is expected from the introduction of OWF?”, most expected a "(1) contribution toglobal warming countermeasures and CO2 emission reduction", with a total of 77.58% of the
respondents selecting “high expectations” or “expectations”. This was followed by "(8) can be used asa subject for environmental education" (67.48%), "(2) securing an energy supply source that does notrely on imports" (64.4%), and "(10) lowering electricity rates for local residents" (48.13%). In contrast,
the least expected was "(7) expansion of human and material exchange with other regions throughelectricity" at 31.42% (Figure 7).

+LJK([SHFWDWLRQV([SHFWDWLRQV

1RWYHU\PXFK

1RWDWDOO'RQ WNQRZ

1RDQVZHUV  & 2 1 7 5 , % 8 7 , 2 1  7 2  * / 2 % $ / ʞ

  & $ 1  % (  8 6 ( '  $ 6  $  6 8 % - ( & 7  ) 2 5 ʞ













  6 ( & 8 5 , 1 *  $  6 2 8 5 & (  2 )  ( 1 ( 5 * < ʞ















   / 2 : ( 5  ( / ( & 7 5 , & , 7 <  5 $ 7 ( 6  ) 2 5 ʞ    



















  - 2 %  & 5 ( $ 7 , 2 1  $ 6 6 2 & , $ 7 ( '  : , 7 + ʞ 

  % 8 6 , 1 ( 6 6  5 ( 9 ( 1 8 ( 6  & $ 1  % (  8 6 ( ' ʞ 











  ( & 2 1 2 0 , & 5 , 3 3 / (  ( ) ) ( & 7  2 1  7 + ( ʞ 











  & 5 ( $ 7 , 2 1  2 )  1 ( :  7 2 8 5 , 6 0  $ 1 ' ʞ 











  2 ) ) 6 + 2 5 (  : , 1 '  3 2 : ( 5 ʞ 















  ( ; 3 $ 1 6 , 2 1  2 )  + 8 0 $ 1  $ 1 ' ʞ 







Figure 7. Expectations for OWF (%)
A cross tabulation analysis of "contribution to global warming countermeasures and CO2 emission
reduction" and "age", "gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence" was conducted. The
results showed that "age", "place of residence", and "years of residence" had no influence on"contribution to global warming countermeasures and CO2 emission reduction", but there were somecharacteristics in terms of “gender” (Table 10 in Appendix). Males had a relatively high percentage of"very high expectations", but at the same time, the percentage of "low expectations" was also high. Next,
we conducted a cross tabulation analysis of "securing energy supply sources that do not rely on imports"and "age", "gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence" respectively. The results showed that"age", "place of residence", and "years of residence" had no effect on "securing an energy supply sourcethat does not rely on imports", but "gender" had a characteristic: males tended to expect “securing anenergy supply source that does not rely on imports” (Table 11 in Appendix). Next, we conducted a crosstabulation analysis of "creation of jobs associated with installation and maintenance of wind turbines"
and "age", "gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence" respectively. The results showed thatthe younger the age of the respondents, the more they expect the creation of jobs (Table 12 in Appendix).
Furthermore, the results showed that the younger the respondents were, the more they expected the OWF
to be used as a tourist resource (Table 13 in Appendix). Young women were more likely to have highexpectations for the “use as a subject for environmental education” (Table 14 in Appendix). Lastly,"reduction of electricity rates for local residents" was characterized by "gender" and "length ofresidence" (Table 15 in Appendix). The fact that 12.1% of the respondents chose "no expectations"indicates that men tend to have lower expectations for the reduction of local electricity rates than women.
The tendency of households with shorter residence periods to expect lower electricity rates was also
found.
5.4 Concerns about the introduction of OWF
Question 4-2 asked respondents about their concerns regarding the introduction of OWF (Figure 8).
When asked, “What are your concerns and worries about the introduction of OWF?”, the most common
concern was "(7) Marine pollution due to collapse or oil leakage caused by typhoons or tsunamis"
accounting for 79.2% of the total of "Very concerned" and "Somewhat concerned" responses. This wasfollowed by "(6) Impact on local industries such as fishing" (64.62%), "(8) Removal of wind turbines
after project completion" (63.29%), and "(10) Increase in electricity rates" (61.98%). In contrast, "(2)Loss of the existing landscape" was a relatively low concern, with a total of 40.22% of respondents
selecting “Very concerned” or “Somewhat concerned”.



9HU\FRQFHUQHG

6RPHZKDWFRQFHUQHG

1RWYHU\ZRUULHG

1RWDWDOOZRUULHG'RQ WNQRZ

1RDQVZHUV  & 2 / / $ 3 6 (  ' 8 (  7 2  7 < 3 + 2 2 1 6  $ 1 ' ʞ





 



 



  , 0 3 $ & 7  2 1  / 2 & $ /  , 1 ' 8 6 7 5 , ( 6 ʞ







  5 ( 0 2 9 $ /  2 )  : , 1 '  7 8 5 % , 1 ( 6ʞ






























   , 1 & 5 ( $ 6 (  , 1  ( / ( & 7 5 , & , 7 < 5 $ 7 ( 6  , 0 3 $ & 7  2 1  ) / 2 5 $   ) $ 8 1 $   $ 1 ' ʞ 8 1 67 $% / ( 32 : ( 5 68 33/ <

























 







  , 0 3 $ & 7  2 1  7 9  , 0 $ * ( 6  $ 1 '  5 $ ' , 2 ʞ   ( ) ) ( & 7 6  ) 5 2 0  1 2 , 6 (  $ 1 ' ʞ  /2662)7+((;,67,1*/$1'6&$3(

 2 & & 8 5 5 ( 1 & (2 )6+ $ ' 2 : )/ , & . ( 5



















Figure 8. Concerns about OWF (%)
Next, a crosstab analysis was conducted on the relationship between "will damage the existinglandscape" and "age", "gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence", respectively. The results
showed that "age", "gender", and "place of residence" had no effect on the "loss of the existinglandscape", but it is possible that those who have lived in the area for shorter periods of time are moreconcerned about the loss of the landscape (Table 16 in Appendix). The highest percentage of "veryconcerned" was 33.33% for respondents who had lived in the house for less than one year. However, thesample size of the respondents who had lived in the area for a short period of time was small, so a moredetailed survey is needed to clarify this issue. Next, a cross tabulation analysis of "impact on flora andfauna such as birds and ecosystems" and "age", "gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence"
revealed that respondents in their 30s, female respondents, and those with shorter residence periods
tended to be more concerned about the impact on ecosystems (Table 17 in Appendix). Next, a crosstabulation analysis was conducted between "impact on local industries such as fishing" and "age","gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence", respectively. The results showed that those in
their 30s who lived in Katsumoto-cho and Ashibe-cho and had lived in Iki City for a longer period oftime tended to be more concerned about the impact on the fishing industry (Table 18 in Appendix). Next,
we conducted a cross tabulation analysis of "marine pollution due to collapse and oil leakage caused bytyphoons and tsunamis" and "age", "gender", "place of residence", and "years of residence", respectively.
The results showed that there was no effect of "age", "place of residence", and "length of residence" on

"marine pollution due to collapses and oil leaks caused by typhoons and tsunamis", but women tended
to be very concerned about the effects of these factors (Table 19 in Appendix). Next, analysis of therelationship between "removal of wind turbines after the project" and "age", "gender", "place ofresidence", and "length of residence" indicated that the respondents in Katsumoto and Ashibe tended tobe concerned about it (Table 20 in Appendix). Since both Katsumoto-cho and Ashibe-cho are areas witha thriving fishing industry, it is possible that they may be concerned about whether wind turbines will
be responsibly removed in the future. Finally, a crosstab analysis of the relationship between the"increase in electricity prices" and each individual's attributes revealed that the younger the respondents
were, the more concerned they tended to be (Table 21 in Appendix).

6. Discussion and Conclusion
This study aimed to understand citizens' preferences for OWF, including their determinants, byanalyzing the questionnaire data from multiple perspectives. The following is a summary of the resultsof the crosstabulation analysis and a discussion based on the results.
First, regarding the level of awareness of OWF, the total of "well aware" and " aware" was about 34%,
which is high compared to the level of awareness in Japan (Iwata et al. 2022). Furthermore, thecrosstabulation results suggest that gender (male), older age, and longer length of residency in the area,
the higher their awareness of OWF generation tends to be. This seems to be a result of increased
awareness as a stakeholder due to the possibility of offshore wind turbines being constructed around theisland. This may be the result of a sense of worry as a concerned party as well as an intrinsic motivation
to obtain correct knowledge. In addition, it is highly likely that "place attachment" and "awareness of
being a party" are correlated with each other.
Next, the most expected was "contribution to global warming countermeasures and CO2 emission
reduction", which was selected by 77.6% of the respondents when "high expectations" and"expectations" were combined. This result cannot be explained by NIMBYism, which is based on selfinterest as a basic motivation. This result indicates that the citizens living on the islands are as consciousof the global and macro-public interests as the general Japanese public, or even more so. In the crosstabulation, a distinctive feature of the results is found in the "gender" category, where a high percentage
of males answered "high expectations" while a high percentage answered "no expectations", showing apolarization of opinions. This may be explained by the "skepticism caused by new technologies"
argument (Assefa and Frostell 2007). With regard to new energy technologies, a "lack of familiarity"
may lead to skepticism. That is, there may be a split between interest in offshore wind as a newtechnology and the perception that, because it is a new technology, the extent to which it can contributeto CO2 reduction is still completely unknown.
The second item of expectation is "can be used as a subject for environmental education”. The total of"very promising" and "promising" was 67.4%. The crosstabulation showed that young female
respondents were more likely to have high expectations. This result is also interesting. Iki City has ahigh awareness of environmental policy, as evidenced by the establishment of a council in 2009 as partof the "Iki City Global Warming Prevention Measures" and the issuance of a "climate emergency
declaration" in 2019. This background might also have influenced the results. The fact that young
women have higher expectations may also indicate their awareness of the importance of environmental
education as part of their children's education.
The third expectation is “securing energy supply sources that do not rely on imports”. The total of "veryhopeful" and "hopeful" was 64.4%. The results also showed that males tended to have higher
expectations for this item. This is because this survey was conducted in September 2021, but if a similar
survey had been conducted in November 2022, when a global situation such as the Ukraine crisis andthe depreciation of the yen are in progress, it might have become the most important issue of concern.
In the current unstable international situation, energy self-sufficiency will become more important.
Next, regarding "concerns about the introduction of OWF" the most common concern was "marine
pollution due to collapse or oil leakage caused by typhoons or tsunamis" accounting for 79.2% of thetotal of "very concerned" and "concerned”. The crosstabulation revealed that women tend to be very
concerned. The fact that Japan has more disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes than other countries
and that disasters are becoming more severe due to the effects of climate change can be cited as thecontext or reason for this result.
The second most important concern is the "impact on local industries such as fishing" with a total of
64.7% of the respondents selecting “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned”. As expected, the mainstakeholders in OWF are fishermen, and it is understandable that they are concerned about the impactof the construction of offshore wind turbines on the fishing industry. Although research has shown thatthe construction of offshore wind turbines will not affect fish catches (Shimada et al. 2022), further
research, discussion, and consensus-building will be essential to this. The crosstabulation results also
show that residents of working age in their 30s who live in Katsumoto-cho and Ashibe-cho and who
have lived in Iki City for a longer period of time tend to be more concerned about the effects on thefishing industry. The fact that both Katsumoto-cho and Ashibe-cho have a thriving fishing industry andthat the working-age residents in their 30s are more concerned does not contradict our prediction.
The third concern is the "removal of wind turbines after the project is completed" with 63.3% of the
respondents selecting "very concerned" or “somewhat concerned”. Considering that "impact on local
industries such as fishing" was selected by 21.8% of the respondents, it can be said that the respondents
are very concerned about the "removal of wind turbines after the completion of the project". This result
suggests that many citizens are concerned about safety and procedural justice in the long-term operationof the wind turbines, in addition to the worries regarding “collapse due to typhoons and tsunamis” and“marine pollution due to oil leakage”. As mentioned above, both of these areas have a thriving fishingindustry, so it is possible that many citizens are concerned about whether the wind turbines will be
removed responsibly in the future.
In contrast, the item of relatively low concern was "damage to the landscape" with a combined total of
40.2% of the respondents being “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned”. Since landscape anddistance from wind turbines are always the top topics of concern regarding social acceptance andconsensus building for OWF overseas, this result does not support the prediction or previous studies.
For local Iki residents, the priority of concern about the possibility of the landscape around the island
being altered by offshore wind turbines is not very high, but this does not mean that the landscape or the
distance to build offshore wind turbines can be neglected. A similar survey of tourists would likely yield
different results. Also, if a more realistic image of how the wind turbines will be constructed is obtained,
this result may change. Further regional surveys will be required in the future. The crosstabulation
results suggest that residents who have lived in the area for a shorter period of time may be moreconcerned about the destruction of the landscape, but if there is a positive correlation between the lengthof residence and concern about the landscape, it may be due to place attachment. However, in this study,
no relationship that could be considered "place attachment" was found.
The results of the hypothesis testing were as follows:
Hypothesis (1) is rejected: It is highly likely that local citizens consider the broad public interest rather
than represent NIMBYism.
Hypothesis (2) is rejected: No distinctive differences were found between the time of residence, which
is a proxy variable for "place attachment", and the various items, based on the results ofthe crosstabulations.
Hypothesis (3) is supported: The results indicate that citizens place importance on the fairness ofprocedures and project processes.
Hypothesis (4) is not clear: The survey data did not reveal justice (fairness) in terms of cost andrisk/benefit.
Hypothesis (5) is supported: The results indicate that communication and trust between the project

proponent/municipality and citizens are very important for the construction of offshore
wind turbines and for the long-term perspective after the construction of the turbines.
When discussing community acceptance of wind power generation, it should be emphasized that inJapan, local residents consider not only NIMBYism but also public benefits and social opportunity costs
in a broader sense. A trend, which have also been observed in preference studies in other countries.
However, this study is the result of a case study in Iki City, and further research is needed to determine
the external validity, i.e., whether the results are similar in other regions where offshore wind turbines
may be built.
Finally, as for policy and practical implications, we would like to highlight the following two points.
First, the cross-tabulation analysis of the level of awareness revealed that the level of awareness among
young people is low. Since OWF has the potential to become the next generation energy source, thegovernment needs to promote efforts to make the younger generation aware of it. Second, if "trust" and"procedural justice" in community acceptance are lacking, it is highly likely that consensus building will
not progress and OWF projects will not succeed. It is clear that citizens place particular importance on"trust", and it is therefore critical for government and project proponents to carefully communicate anddisclose information to the citizens to foster a sense of trust/security, taking into consideration the longterm effects after the offshore wind turbines are constructed.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Iki City and Kokusai Kogyo Corporation for their great support in conceiving
this study.

References
Assefa, G., society, B.F.-T. in, (2007). “Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology
assessment: A case study of energy technologies.” Technology in society 29.1: 63-78.
Brown, B.B., Perkins, D.D., (1992). Disruptions in Place Attachment. Place Attach. 279–304.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_13
Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection ofrestorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of environmental
psychology, 30(3), 271-280.
Devine‐Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding
public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress andApplications in Wind Power Conversion Technology, 8(2), 125-139.
Ek, K. (2005). Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind
power. Energy policy, 33(13), 1677-1689.
Gross, C., (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justiceand community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 35, 2727–2736.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2006.12.013
Iki City (2021). Survey Report on Offshore Wind Farms.
Iki Sightseeing Navigation (2022). https://www.ikikankou.com/, (viewed October 26, 2022).
Iwata, K., Kyoi, S., Yue, C., & Ushifusa, Y. (2022). Social Acceptance of Wind Turbines: An
Empirical Study Using Choice Experiments. In Mapping the Energy Future-Voyage in
Uncharted Territory-, 43rd IAEE International Conference, July 31-August 3, 2022.
International Association for Energy Economics.
Jacquet, J. B., & Stedman, R. C. (2013). Perceived impacts from wind farm and natural gas
development in northern Pennsylvania. Rural Sociology, 78(4), 450-472.
Jones, C. R., & Eiser, J. R. (2009). Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore winddevelopment with reference to an English case study. Energy policy, 37(11), 4604-4614.
Kumazawa, T. (2017). "Influencing Factors on Residents' Acceptance Regarding Wind Power
Generation Facilities", The City Planning Institute of Japan, Journal of City Planning, Vol. 52. No.
3.
Low, S.M., Altman, I., (1992). Place Attachment. Place Attach. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-14684-8753-4_1
Motosu, Mei (2016). Social Acceptance of Wind Power Generation, Nakanishiya Publishing Co.
Nagasaki Prefecture Iki City Website (2022), https://www.city.iki.nagasaki.jp/index.html, (viewed
October 24, 2022).
Owens, S., (2004). Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. J. Risk Res. 7, 101–114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000158686
Shimada, H., Asano, K., Nagai, Y., & Ozawa, A. (2022). Assessing the Impact of OWF Deployment
on Fishery: A Synthetic Control Approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 83(3), 791829.
Slovic, P., (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Anal. 13, 675–682.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1539-6924.1993.TB01329.X
Söderholm, P., Ek, K., & Pettersson, M. (2007). Wind power development in Sweden: Global policies
and local obstacles. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 11(3), 365-400.
Swofford, J., & Slattery, M. (2010). Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities inclose proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy policy, 38(5), 25082519.
Wolsink, M., (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of thelanguage of NIMBY. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J., (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy
innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35, 2683–2691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2006.12.001



Appendix

Table 7. Awareness of OWF × Age
Well aware

Aware

Somewhat aware

Don’t know

Invalid responses

Total

20s
(%)
30s

2
4.44
3

3
6.67
17

19
42.22
26

21
46.67
26

0
0
1

45
100
73

(%)
40s

4.11
8

23.29
12

35.62
42

35.62
20

1.37
1

100
83

(%)
50s
(%)

9.64
5
6.41

14.46
21
26.92

50.6
34
43.59

24.1
15
19.23

1.2
3
3.85

100
78
100

60s
(%)

11
12.09

35
38.46

32
35.16

9
9.89

4
4.4

91
100

70s
(%)

13
15.85

23
28.05

22
26.83

19
23.17

5
6.1

82
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

0
0
42

1
33.33
112

2
66.67
177

0
0
110

0
0
14

3
100
455

(%)

9.23

24.62

38.9

24.18

3.08

100

Aware
36
15.72

Somewhat aware
101
44.1

Don’t know
79
34.5

Invalid responses
5
2.18

Total
229
100

Table 8. Awareness of OWF × Gender
Female(%)

Well aware
8
3.49

Male

34

75

74

31

9

223

(%)
Invalid responses
(%)

15.25
0
0

33.63
1
33.33

33.18
2
66.67

13.9
0
0

4.04
0
0

100
3
100

Total
(%)

42
9.23

112
24.62

177
38.9

110
24.18

14
3.08

455
100

Table 9. Awareness of OWF × Duration of residence in Iki
Well aware

Aware

Somewhat aware

Don’t know

Invalid responses

Total

Less than 1 year(%)
More than 1 year to less than 5 years

0
0
2

1
16.67
4

2
33.33
7

3
50
10

0
0
1

6
100
24

(%)
More than 5 years to less than 10 years

8.33
0

16.67
5

29.17
3

41.67
3

4.17
0

100
11

(%)
10 years to less than 20 years
(%)

0
2
7.14

45.45
3
10.71

27.27
12
42.86

27.27
11
39.29

0
0
0

100
28
100

More than 20 years
(%)

20
9.48

52
24.64

87
41.23

47
22.27

5
2.37

211
100

Since birth
(%)

18
10.4

47
27.17

64
36.99

36
20.81

8
4.62

173
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

0
0
42

0
0
112

2
100
177

0
0
110

0
0
14

2
100
455

(%)

9.23

24.62

38.9

24.18

3.08

100




Table 10. Contribution to global warming countermeasures ʹ GenderHigh expectations
30
13.1

Female(%)

Not very much
16
6.99

Don’t know
27
11.79

Not at all Expectations
2
148
0.87
64.63

No answers
6
2.62

Total
229
100

Male

53

28

12

5

121

4

223

(%)
Invalid responses

23.77
1

12.56
1

5.38
1

2.24
0

54.26
0

1.79
0

100
3

(%)
Total
(%)

33.33
84
18.46

33.33
45
9.89

33.33
40
8.79

0.00
7
1.54

0.00
269
59.12

0
10
2.2

100
455
100

Table 11. Securing an energy supply source ʹ Gender
No answers

Total

Female(%)

High expectations Not very much
22
9.61

45
19.65

Don’t know
39
17.03

Not at all Expectations
3
1.31

113
49.34

7
3.06

229
100

Male
(%)
Invalid
responses(%)
Total
(%)

39
17.49

32
14.35

19
8.52

8
3.59

119
53.36

6
2.69

223
100

0

33.33

33.33

0.00

0.00

33.33

100

61
13.41

78
17.14

59
12.97

11
2.42

232
50.99

14
3.08

455
100

Table 12. Job creation ʹ Age
High expectations

Expectations

Not very much

Not at all

Don’t know

No answers

Total

20s
(%)
30s

5
11.11
3

20
44.44
33

11
24.44
19

1
2.22
6

8
17.78
10

0
0
2

45
100
73

(%)
40s

4.11
6

45.21
29

26.03
35

8.22
2

13.7
11

2.74
0

100
83

(%)
50s
(%)

7.23
7
8.97

34.94
31
39.74

42.17
24
30.77

2.41
4
5.13

13.25
10
12.82

0
2
2.56

100
78
100

60s
(%)

4
4.4

34
37.36

30
32.97

11
12.09

12
13.19

0
0

91
100

70s
(%)

6
7.32

24
29.27

29
35.37

4
4.88

12
14.63

7
8.54

82
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

0
0
31

1
33.33
172

1
33.33
149

0
0
28

1
33.33
64

0
0
11

3
100
455

(%)

6.81

37.8

32.75

6.15

14.07

2.42

100




Table 13. OWF landscape will become tourism resource ʹ Gender

Female(%)

High expectations
20
8.73

Not very much
80
34.93

Don’t know
38
16.59

Male
(%)
Invalid responses
(%)
Total
(%)

16
7.17
0
0
36
7.91

93
41.7
1
33.33
174
38.24

24
10.76
1
33.33
63
13.85

Not at all
13
5.68

Expectations
70
30.57

No answers
8
3.49

Total
229
100

55
24.66
0
0.00
125
27.47

6
2.69
1
33.33
15
3.3

223
100
3
100
455
100

Expectations

29
13.00
0
0.00
42
9.23

Table 14. For environmental education ʹ Age
High expectations

Not very much

Don’t know

No answers

Total

20s
(%)
30s

10
22.22
16

3
6.67
5

8
17.78
6

Not at all
0
0.00
1

24
53.33
43

0
0
2

45
100
73

(%)
40s

21.92
12

6.85
6

8.22
13

1.37
4

58.90
48

2.74
0

100
83

(%)
50s
(%)

14.46
9
11.54

7.23
12
15.38

15.66
11
14.1

4.82
0
0.00

57.83
44
56.41

0
2
2.56

100
78
100

60s
(%)

9
9.89

17
18.68

10
10.99

6
6.59

49
53.85

0
0

91
100

70s
(%)

6
7.32

13
15.85

14
17.07

4
4.88

37
45.12

8
9.76

82
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

0
0
62

1
33.33
57

1
33.33
63

0
0.00
15

0
0.00
245

1
33.33
13

3
100
455

(%)

13.63

12.53

13.85

3.30

53.85

2.86

100

Table 15. Lower electricity rates ʹ Gender

Female(%)

High expectations
28
12.23

Not very much
60
26.2

Don’t know
35
15.28

Male
(%)
Invalid responses
(%)

22
9.87
0
0

66
29.6
1
33.33

27
12.11
1
33.33

27
12.11
0
0.00

Total
(%)

50
10.99

127
27.91

63
13.85

37
8.13




Not at all Expectations
10
92
4.37
40.17

No answers
4
1.75

Total
229
100

77
34.53
0
0.00

4
1.79
1
33.33

223
100
3
100

169
37.14

9
1.98

455
100

Table 16. Loss of the existing landscape ʹ Duration of residence in Iki
Very concerned

Somewhat concerned

Don't know

No answers

Total

Less than 1 year(%)
More than 1 year to less than 5 years

2
33.33
2

1
16.67
10

Not very worried Not at all worried
2
33.33
8

0
0
1

1
16.67
3

0
0
0

6
100
24

(%)
More than 5 years to less than 10 years

8.33
0

41.67
4

33.33
4

4.17
2

12.5
1

0
0

100
11

(%)
10 years to less than 20 years
(%)

0
1
3.57

36.36
10
35.71

36.36
11
39.29

18.18
2
7.14

9.09
3
10.71

0
1
3.57

100
28
100

More than 20 years
(%)

21
9.95

65
30.81

92
43.6

9
4.27

13
6.16

11
5.21

211
100

Since birth
(%)

11
6.36

55
31.79

60
34.68

11
6.36

17
9.83

19
10.98

173
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

0
0
37

1
50
146

0
0
177

0
0
25

0
0
38

1
50
32

2
100
455

(%)

8.13

32.09

38.9

5.49

8.35

7.03

100

Table 17. Impact on ecosystems ʹ Duration of residence in Iki
Don't know

No answers

Total

Less than 1 year(%)
More than 1 year to less than 5 years

Very concerned
2
33.33
4

Somewhat concerned Not very worried Not at all worried
3
50
14

0
0
3

0
0
0

1
16.67
3

0
0
0

6
100
24

(%)
More than 5 years to less than 10 years

16.67
3

58.33
4

12.5
2

0
1

12.5
1

0
0

100
11

(%)
10 years to less than 20 years
(%)

27.27
5
17.86

36.36
11
39.29

18.18
7
25

9.09
0
0

9.09
4
14.29

0
1
3.57

100
28
100

More than 20 years
(%)

31
14.69

89
42.18

53
25.12

3
1.42

23
10.9

12
5.69

211
100

Since birth
(%)

21
12.14

61
35.26

41
23.7

9
5.2

24
13.87

17
9.83

173
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

0
0
66

1
50
183

0
0
106

0
0
13

0
0
56

1
50
31

2
100
455

(%)

14.51

40.22

23.3

2.86

12.31

6.81

100

Table 18. Impact on local industries such as fishery ʹ Residential areas
Katsumoto-cho

Very concerned

Not very worried

Don't know

30

15

9

Not at all worried
1

37

No answers
9

Total
101

29.7

14.85

8.91

0.99

36.63

8.91

100

Ishida-cho

12

15

8

3

22

4

64

Ashibe-cho

18.75
18

23.44
14

12.5
15

4.69
4

34.38
58

6.25
4

100
113

15.93

12.39

13.27

3.54

51.33

3.54

100

38

25

18

4

78

12

175

21.71

14.29

10.29

2.29

44.57

6.86

100

1
50

0
0

0
0

0
0.00

0
0.00

1
50

2
100

Gonoura-cho
Invalid responses
Total

99

69

50

12

195

30

455

21.76

15.16

10.99

2.64

42.86

6.59

100




Somewhat concerned

Table 19. Marine pollution ʹ Gender
Female(%)

Very concerned
74
32.31

Not very worried
9
3.93

Don't know
13
5.68

Male
(%)
Invalid responses

60
26.91
1

24
10.76
0

12
5.38
0

(%)
Total
(%)

33.33
135
29.67

0
33
7.25

0
25
5.49

Not at all worried
2
0.87

Somewhat concerned No answers
113
18
49.34
7.86

Total
229
100

4
1.79
0

112
50.22
0

11
4.93
2

223
100
3

0.00
6
1.32

0.00
225
49.45

66.67
31
6.81

100
455
100

Somewhat concerned

No answers

Table 20. Removal of wind turbines ʹ Residential areas
Very concerned

Not very worried

Don't know

Katsumoto-cho

32

8

11

Not at all worried
0

40

10

Total
101

(%)

31.68

7.92

10.89

0.00

39.60

9.9

100

Ishida-cho

14

13

11

3

19

4

64

(%)
Ashibe-cho

21.88
28

20.31
14

17.19
14

4.69
5

29.69
47

6.25
5

100
113
100

(%)

24.78

12.39

12.39

4.42

41.59

4.42

Gonoura-cho

43

22

29

3

65

13

175

(%)

24.57

12.57

16.57

1.71

37.14

7.43

100

Invalid responses
(%)

0
0

1
50

0
0

0
0.00

0
0.00

1
50

2
100

Total

117

58

65

11

171

33

455

(%)

25.71

12.75

14.29

2.42

37.58

7.25

100

Table 21. Increase in electricity rates ʹ Age
Very concerned

Not very worried

Don't know

No answers

Total

20s
(%)
30s

12
26.67
19

5
11.11
14

8
17.78
7

Not at all worried
4
8.89
0

16
35.56
31

0
0
2

45
100
73

(%)
40s

26.03
20

19.18
13

9.59
18

0.00
2

42.47
29

2.74
1

100
83

(%)
50s
(%)

24.1
17
21.79

15.66
6
7.69

21.69
8
10.26

2.41
1
1.28

34.94
38
48.72

1.2
8
10.26

100
78
100

60s
(%)

16
17.58

11
12.09

13
14.29

2
2.20

45
49.45

4
4.4

91
100

70s
(%)

14
17.07

10
12.2

15
18.29

6
7.32

24
29.27

13
15.85

82
100

Invalid responses
(%)
Total

1
33.33
99

0
0
59

0
0
69

0
0.00
15

0
0.00
183

2
66.67
30

3
100
455

(%)

21.76

12.97

15.16

3.30

40.22

6.59

100




Somewhat concerned