Emotional response to images of wind turbines: a psychophysiological study of their visual impact on the landscape
View/ Open
Watts_Landscape_and_Urban_Planning.pdf (724.3Kb)
Download
Publication date
2015-10Rights
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Peer-Reviewed
Yes
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Social acceptance for wind turbines is variable, providing a challenge to the implementation of this energy source. Psychological research could contribute to the science of climate change. Here we focus on the emotional responses to the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape, a factor which dominates attitudes towards this technology. Participants in the laboratory viewed images of turbines and other constructions (churches, pylons and power-plants) against rural scenes, and provided psychophysiological and self-report measures of their emotional reactions. We hypothesised that the emotional response to wind turbines would be more negative and intense than to control objects, and that this difference would be accentuated for turbine opponents. As predicted, the psychophysiological response to turbines was stronger than the response to churches, but did not differ from that of other industrial constructions. In contrast with predictions, turbines were rated as less aversive and more calming compared with other industrial constructions, and equivalent to churches. Supporters and non-supporters did not differ significantly from each other. We discuss how a methodology using photo manipulations and emotional self-assessments can help estimate the emotional reaction to the visual impact on the landscape at the planning stage for new wind turbine applications.Version
Accepted ManuscriptCitation
Maehr AM, Watts GR, Hanratty J et al (2015) Emotional response to images of wind turbines: a psychophysiological study of their visual impact on the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 142: 71-79.Link to Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.011Type
Articleae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.05.011