Exploring Residents’ Perceptions of Offshore Wind Farms in Western Australia: A Qualitative Investigation

Reviewer’s comments

Authors Response

REVIEWER 1

The manuscript presents a meaningful qualitative investigation conducted in Australia. The investigation and its findings are clearly articulated; however, the overall contributions of the study are not sufficiently well defined. The following points outline areas for improvement:

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. The authors have considered the comments and revised sections of the manuscript accordingly.

Please see below our responses to your four comments. Thank you.

1. Clarify and strengthen the contributions: Among the three contributions listed, only the first represents a true contribution. The second and third appear to be outcomes or implications of the work rather than contributions themselves. The authors should refine this section to clearly distinguish between contributions and results.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have considered the comments and revised the second and third contributions.

Please see the introduction section, last paragraph, lines 80 to 94. Thank you.

2. Scope of the investigation: The authors acknowledge that the responses may not be representative of all Australian residents. Given that the data were collected in WA, the authors should consider explicitly limiting the scope of the investigation to that region, rather than generalizing to the entire country.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have considered the comments and revised sections of the manuscript accordingly.

First, the authors have clearly indicated that the study considers Western Australia as the case region for the study.

Second, the authors have revised the methodology section to clearly define the source of the data and its scope.

Third, the authors have revised the implications section to emphasise that the study offers Western Australian practitioners and policymakers good baseline information about residents’ views. The authors then argue that the study findings may be useful to other regions with a similar profile undergoing similar energy transitions.

Please see the Materials and Methods (2) and Discussion (4) sections. Thank you.

3. Formatting consistency: Ensure consistent paragraph indentation throughout the manuscript to improve readability and maintain a professional presentation.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have copyedited the manuscript to improve readability, clarity and maintain a professional presentation.

4. Presentation of results: To enhance clarity and accessibility, the authors could consider presenting the investigation results using tables or graphs, where appropriate.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have revised the study findings section accordingly and incorporated figures in sections deemed appropriate. For example, the authors have added new figures to visually illustrate the distribution of perspective among different age groups as well as gender groups. The authors have clearly linked the text to the newly added figures to ensure the logical flow of the presented findings.

Please see Section 3: Study Results, under subsection 3.1 Residents’ knowledge levels on offshore wind farms, from lines 455 to 482. In addition, in subsection 3.3, Residents’ perceptions of factors influencing acceptance decisions, please see the last paragraph with red text in figure 4. Thank you.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors Response

REVIEWER 2

The paper “Exploring residents” perceptions of offshore wind farms in Australia: A qualitative investigation' addresses an interesting research topic. The authors focused their attention on the issue of public attitudes towards offshore wind farm technology development. Identifying a research gap in the subject, the authors analysed both the socially perceived benefits of offshore wind farm development and, against this background, their acceptance, but most importantly the factors influencing acceptance decisions. The authors obtained the research material through face-to-face interviews in the offshore wind farm location adopted for the study. The study provides interesting research results and valuable conclusions.
The abstract of the paper presents the aim of the research, its purpose. It discusses the gap in the literature and indicates the relevance of the presented study in its context. In the abstract, the authors have included information about the nature of the study, and highlighted key findings. Abstract correct - I make no comments on its content.

The authors offered an introduction in a complex format. In the first part, issues presenting the background of the research were raised, pointing out the problems of the development of renewable energy with particular emphasis on offshore wind farms and their reference to the studied country. 

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. The authors have considered the comments and revised sections of the manuscript accordingly.

Please see below our responses to your five comments. Thank you.

1. The next part of the introduction reviews the literature in relation to the development of this field of renewable energy in the world and the study area. The literature review should be developed and guided towards a precise explanation of the research gap motivating the authors to undertake the research in question. The literature review should justify the study by providing a reference for the research hypotheses adopted. This means that a literature review should be conducted in the area of public perception research in relation to this issue. It is worthwhile to analyse global findings in this area in order to then move on to the country under study. There is a wealth of literature on the subject, and it is worth studying https://doi.org/10.3390/en17163912, or https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209057, among others. The above will generally enhance the cognitive value of the study, and the review of the findings of the literature in this area. The next section of the introduction discusses the Theoretical underpinnings and themes development, which was done exhaustively.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. First, the authors have read the suggested articles, and both articles have been cited in the study. Second, the authors have added new sections to the literature review section to provide more justification for the propositions levelled in the paper. Third, the authors have strengthened the section on public perception literature on renewable energy projects by expanding on some earlier arguments. The new additions have helped to indicate the ongoing debate in the field of study clearly and indicated how the current study adds to the existing knowledge.

Please see 1.2 Literature Review Section under 1.2.1 subsection Acceptance of Offshore Wind Farms: A global Overview, lines 98 to 124 and 1.2.2 Offshore Wind Farms: An Australian Perspective, lines 150 to 154, 187 to 194 and 200 to 211.

2. The next - 2 section of the Materials and Methods paper discusses the region of the study - under Figure 1 (line 269) the discussion text should be completed. This is followed by a characterisation of the study sample and a discussion of the scope of the study

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have completed the section by clearly linking the text to the illustrated figure. The presented narrative now links clearly to the figure.

Please see Materials and Methods Section 2, subsection 2.1 Case Region: An Overview, lines 318 to 325.

3. Section 3 is devoted to a discussion of the results of the study. Although the authors have indicated that they are conducting a qualitative study, the lack of any numerical representation limits the cognitive part quite a bit. I suggest analysing the results and providing indication statistics, which would strengthen the inference side. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment.

The authors have made new additions that help to address the numerical concerns raised by the reviewer. First, the authors have added some descriptive illustrations of the findings. Second, the authors have revised some sections of the discussion to incorporate all relevant articles to strengthen the deductions made in the discussion section. At present, the study findings are well situated within the ongoing debate in the existing literature.

4. Discussion section generally correct, although it would be useful to strengthen the references to the literature in terms of discussing the findings, to strengthen the implications.

We thank the reviewer for the comment.

The authors have revised the discussion section by supporting study findings with relevant articles.

Also, drawing from the identified relevant literature, the authors have strengthened the implication sections of the paper. [Please see the Please see the Section 4 Discussion and Study Limitations. We added the first paragraph and a sentence at the end of the fifth paragraph.

5. Summary I think needs to be developed. The summary should more strongly emphasise the contribution of the study to the existing literature in response to the diagnosed gap. I suggest improving the above.

We thank the reviewer for the comment.

Please see Section 5: Conclusion and Future Research Directions. Thank you.

We have made the required changes in paragraphs one and two and removed the paragraph with the main findings, including the study’s three key factors.

Literature well chosen, but worth reinforcing.
In conclusion. The paper is interesting but needs improvement before publication. The introduction (literature review) needs improvement. In addition, additions to the discussion in the text are required - as noted in the review. The scope of the discussion and the summary need to be refined.  Detailed suggestions are included in the body of the review.

We thank the reviewer for the comment.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors Response

REVIEWER 3

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this insightful study, which is quite important for the policy-makers to form better-informed decisions regarding renewable energy. The paper is a non-technical one, based on qualitative interviews structured around the Knowledge-attitude-behaviour model. 

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. The authors have considered the comments and revised sections of the manuscript accordingly.

Please see below our responses to your two comments. Thank you.

1. The problem investigated is sound, and the discussion given that the model and interview are appropriate; however, there are some fundamental issues with respect to how the model was used. The reviewer would appreciate it if the authors could shed some light on these points. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment. First, the Knowledge-attitude-behaviour model served as the theoretical foundation for the study’s data instrument. Key indicators and variables proposed in this model were adapted in the study’s interview guide to explore residents’ perception of such key elements. We revised subsection 1.3 on Theoretical Underpinnings and Themes Development and added a few details to address your concern.

2. The primary concerns regarding offshore wind power have always been costs (high initial capital and maintenance for 20-25, maybe 30 years), power intermittency, grid resilience and lack of supply chain development to support the green transition. Why do interviews not involve any discussion about them? To my understanding, the study does not cover any of these topics that have been the main drivers of poor social acceptance in offshore wind in some European countries and the US. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment.

The authors acknowledge the importance of these themes raised by the reviewer. Our observation from the literature indicated that issues such as supply chain concerns, maintenance etc was prevalent in the supply side of the literature and suppliers shared significant concern on these matters. Our study which solely focuses on the residents (consumer) side of the renewable energy transition literature still revealed that factors such as cost remained key factor in decision making. Our study focuses on residents’ perception of the development of an offshore wind infrastructure in their region and what factors influence their decisions to accepting such infrastructure being located in their region. We acknowledge the importance of the point raised by the reviewer,  the primary concern for wind power has always been high initial capital and maintenance costs, power intermittency, grid resilience and lack of supply chain development to support the green transition. We revised the last paragraph of subsection 4.1. Limitations of the study to emphasise the need for future studies to focus on adoption factors.

The authors have included this as key area that future research should target to explore further.  

Reviewer’s comments

Authors Response

REVIEWER 3

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this insightful study, which is quite important for the policy-makers to form better-informed decisions regarding renewable energy. The paper is a non-technical one, based on qualitative interviews structured around the Knowledge-attitude-behaviour model. 

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our manuscript. The authors have considered the comments and revised sections of the manuscript accordingly.

Please see below our responses to your two comments. Thank you.

1. The problem investigated is sound, and the discussion given that the model and interview are appropriate; however, there are some fundamental issues with respect to how the model was used. The reviewer would appreciate it if the authors could shed some light on these points. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment. First, the Knowledge-attitude-behaviour model served as the theoretical foundation for the study’s data instrument. Key indicators and variables proposed in this model were adapted in the study’s interview guide to explore residents’ perception of such key elements. We revised subsection 1.3 on Theoretical Underpinnings and Themes Development and added a few details to address your concern.

Please see additional changes (outlined in blue) made in Section 1.3, Theoretical Underpinnings and Themes Development in Table 1. Themes and variables derived from the interviews.

In the section 2.2 Research Interviews, please see added changes (outlined in blue).

Thank you.

2. The primary concerns regarding offshore wind power have always been costs (high initial capital and maintenance for 20-25, maybe 30 years), power intermittency, grid resilience and lack of supply chain development to support the green transition. Why do interviews not involve any discussion about them? To my understanding, the study does not cover any of these topics that have been the main drivers of poor social acceptance in offshore wind in some European countries and the US. 

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have revisited the comments and addressed them accordingly in the manuscript.

The authors acknowledge the importance of these themes raised by the reviewer.

First, we revised the 1.2.1 Acceptance of Offshore Wind Farms: A Global Overview, please refer to lines 139 to 149.

Second, the authors have improved the literature review section (outlined in red) by capturing global evidence of identified factors shaping the social acceptance of offshore wind power projects. This claim is duly substantiated with relevant articles.

Third, the authors have revisited the study data and revised the study result sections accordingly. The authors have captured the residents’ perspective on key issues on cost, maintenance, power generation intermittency and lack of supply chain development. It was further observed that the visual impacts of such projects remain a key concern to residents, as earlier captured in the study.  Please refer to section 3.3 Residents’ perception of factors influencing acceptance decisions (outlined in blue).

Fourth, the authors have added new sections to the discussion (outlined in blue) to advance knowledge across these identified factors. Adding to this, the authors have shared insights into how future studies can best advance knowledge on this matter.

Thank you!