4.7 Article

Predictors of local support for a seawater desalination plant in a small coastal community

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 101-111

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.08.009

关键词

Resilience; Attitude; Water supply; NIMBY; Desalination

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Coastal SEES program [1325649]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences [1325649] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1325649] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seawater desalination is increasingly being pursued to address freshwater shortages. In California, multiple coastal seawater desalination facilities have been proposed to diversify water portfolios and to increase reliability of water supply. This paper explores local residents support for a newly constructed desalination plant in Carlsbad, a small coastal community in Southern California. The plant is the first high-capacity desalination facility in California and started operation in December 2015. We found strong support for the desalination plant as 71.9% of residents reported support for the plant. Only 15.5% of respondents were undecided indicating that residents had a clear opinion on the plant. Perceptions about local water resources were significant predictors of support. Attitudes may change over time if the state of water resources and perceptions thereof change. Expected outcomes of the plant also predicted support. An increase in available drinking water was a positive predictor, while environmental and social impacts were negative predictors. Economic impacts in terms of an increase in the price of water did not influence local support. Ethnicity and age were the only socio-demographic variables that had an effect on support suggesting that the socio-demographic profile of a community may not be a good predictor of community support or rejection of this water supply technology. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据