A Bibliographic Analysis: The Expansion and Evolution of Wind Energy Research from 1980 to 2021

Abstract

This paper examined the wind energy literature from 1980 to 2021 using bibliometric technique on the Web of Science database Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). Of 2531 publications, 85.89 % are journal articles, and about 99.17 % are published in English. In addition that, the “Environmental Sciences & Ecology” is the most productive research area. The USA is the most productive country based on the total publications, H-index and total citation. Indeed, when to analyze the academic collaborative relationships among countries, the USA and UK are the center of international collaboration and mostly work with China, Spain and Denmark respectively. Furthermore, “Energy Policy” is the most productive journal and “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews” journal has the highest impact factor. Institution performance analysis is to reveal that the Holland, America, England and China universities are more active in the wind energy researches. Moreover, Devine-Wright P. is the most academically influential author in the wind energy. The article with the highest total citations is titled “Beyond NIMBY’ism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy.” According to keyword cooperation analysis, “power”, “wind energy” and “renewable energy” have the highest link strength among other keywords.

Keywords

• Wind Energy
• Energy
• Renewable Energy
• Bibliographic Analysis
• Collaborative Relationship.

Bir Bibliyografik Analiz: 1980'den 2021'e Rüzgar Enerjisi Araştırmalarının Gelişimi ve Evrimi

Öz

Bu makale, Web of Science veri tabanı Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) üzerinde yer alan 1980'den 2021'ae kadar olan rüzgar enerjisi literatürünü bibliyometrik teknik kullanarak incelemiştir. 2531 yayının %85.89’u dergi makaleleridir ve yaklaşık %99.17’si İngilizce olarak yayınlanmıştır. Buna ek olarak, “Çevre Bilimleri ve Ekoloji” en verimli araştırma alanıdır. Toplam yayın, H indeksi ve toplam atıf bazında Amerika Birleşik Devletleri en verimli ülkedir. Dahası, ülkeler arasındaki akademik işbirliği ilişkileri analiz edildiğinde, ABD ve İngiltere uluslararası işbirliğinin merkezidir ve çoğunlukla sırasıyla Çin, İspanya ve Danimarka ile çalışmaktadır. Ayrıca “Energy Policy” en verimli dergidir ve “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews” dergisi en yüksek etki faktörüne sahiptir. Kurum performans analizi, Hollanda, Amerika, İngiltere ve Çin üniversitelerinin rüzgar enerjisi çalışmalarında daha aktif olduğunu ortaya koymaktır. Ayrıca, Devine-Wright P. rüzgar enerjisi alanında akademik olarak en etkili yazardır. En yüksek toplam alıntıya sahip makalenin başlığı “Beyond NIMBY’ism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy”dir. Anahtar kelime işbirliği analizine göre,“güç”, “rüzgar enerjisi” ve “yenilenebilir enerji” kelimeleri diğer anahtar kelimeler arasında en yüksek bağlantı gücüne sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rüzgar Enerjisi
• Enerji
• Yenilenebilir Enerji
• Bibliyografik Analiz
• İşbirliği İlişkisi

Kaynakça

1. American Clean Power Association, 2020. https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/american-clean-power-renewable-energy-and-infrastucture-policy-analysis.pdf (08.03.2022).
2. American Wind Energy Association, 2009. Rreceived from: https://cleanpower.org/facts/offshore-wind/: date: 7.03.2022).
3. Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975.
4. Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 967-972.
5. Beise, M., and Rennings, K. (2005). Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecological economics, 52(1), 5-17.
6. Bell, D., Gray, T., & Haggett, C. (2005). The ‘social gap’in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environmental politics, 14(4), 460-477.
7. Berry, D. (2009). Innovation and the price of wind energy in the US. Energy Policy, 37(11), 4493-4499.
8. Bouyssou, D., and Marchant, T. (2011). Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1761-1769.

9. Cagle, M. (2020). A Mappıng Analysis of Blockchain Applications Within the Field of Auditing. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 22(4), 695-724.
10. Cagle, M. (2021). Denetimde Blokzincir Teknolojisinin Uygulanması ve Denetim Mesleğinin Geleceği. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, 1-98.
11. Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology, 8(2), 125-139.
12. Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 19(6), 426-441.
13. Devine-Wright, P., and Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(3), 271-280.
14. Du, H., Li, B., Brown, M. A., Mao, G., Rameezdeen, R., and Chen, H. (2015). Expanding and shifting trends in carbon market research: a quantitative bibliometric study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 104-111.
15. Du, H., Wei, L., Brown, M. A., Wang, Y., and Shi, Z. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of recent energy efficiency literatures: an expanding and shifting focus. Energy Efficiency, 6(1), 177-190.
16. European Commission, 2010. Received from: https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf (10.03.2022).
17. Fraenkel, P. L., & Kenna, J. P. (1984). The economic viability and competitiveness of small scale wind systems'. In Proceedings of the 5th BWEA Wind Energy Conference.
18. García-Álvarez, M. T., Cabeza-García, L., & Soares, I. (2017). Analysis of the promotion of onshore wind energy in the EU: Feed-in tariff or renewable portfolio standard?. Renewable energy, 111, 256-264.
19. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Hoekstra, A. Y., and Van der Meer, T. H. (2009). The water footprint of energy from biomass: A quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply. Ecological economics, 68(4), 1052-1060.
20. Green Policy Platform, 2009. Received from: https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/national-documents/renewable-energy-law-peoples-republic-china#:~:text=Renewable%20Energy%20Law%20of%20the%20People's%20Republic%20of%20China%20was,order%20to%20realize%20sustainable%20development. (10.03.2022).
21. Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy policy, 35(5), 2727-2736.
22. Hansen, T., & Coenen, L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 17, 92-109.
23. Hou, Q., Mao, G., Zhao, L., Du, H., and Zuo, J. (2015). Mapping the scientific research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(4), 541-555.
24. Jacobs, D. (2010). Demystification of bibliometrics, scientometrics, informetrics and webometrics. In 11th DIS Annual Conference, 1-19.
25. Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., and Mimler, S. (2007). Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy policy, 35(5), 2751-2760.
26. Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., and Wahlster, W. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the future of German manufacturing industry. Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Forschungsunion.
27. Kaya, T., and Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, 35(6), 2517-2527.
28. Klaassen, G., Miketa, A., Larsen, K., and Sundqvist, T. (2005). The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Ecological economics, 54(2-3), 227-240.
29. Knox-Hayes, J., Brown, M. A., Sovacool, B. K., and Wang, Y. (2013). Understanding attitudes toward energy security: results of a cross-national survey. Global environmental change, 23(3), 609-622.
30. Lapin, E. E. (1977). Economic competitiveness of windmills. Energy Conversion, 16(4), 213-220.
31. Malik, M. Z., Ali, A., Kaloi, G. S., Soomro, A. M., Baloch, M. H., & Chauhdary, S. T. (2020). Integration of renewable energy project: a technical proposal for rural electrification to local communities. IEEE Access, 8, 91448-91467.
32. Markevičius, A., Katinas, V., & Marčiukaitis, M. (2007). Wind energy development policy and prospects in Lithuania. Energy policy, 35(10), 4893-4901.
33. Menz, F. C., and Vachon, S. (2006). The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: Experiences from the states. Energy policy, 34(14), 1786-1796.
34. Moral Muñoz, J. A., Herrera Viedma, E., Santisteban Espejo, A., and Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El profesional de la información, 29(1), 4.
35. Nakicenovic, N., and Grubler, A. (2000). Energy and the protection of the atmosphere. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 13, 4-57.
36. Pazheri, F. R., Othman, M. F., and Malik, N. H. (2014). A review on global renewable electricity scenario. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 835-845.
37. Pelc, R., and Fujita, R. M. (2002). Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy, 26(6), 471-479.
38. Pinson, P., Chevallier, C., and Kariniotakis, G. N. (2007). Trading wind generation from short-term probabilistic forecasts of wind power. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22(3), 1148-1156.
39. Rajsekhar, B., Van Hulle, F., & Jansen, J. C. (1999). Indian wind energy programme: performance and future directions. Energy policy, 27(11), 669-678.
40. Rapier, R (2020). Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent Of World Energy — And Other Eye Openers From BP’s Annual Review. Forbes.com. Received: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=479ee87966a1 (28.08.2021)
41. Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., and Harnisch, M. (2015). Industry 4.0: The future of productivity and growth in manufacturing industries. Boston Consulting Group, 9.
42. Smit, T., Junginger, M., & Smits, R. (2007). Technological learning in offshore wind energy: Different roles of the government. Energy policy, 35(12), 6431-6444.
43. Smith, J. C., Milligan, M. R., DeMeo, E. A., & Parsons, B. (2007). Utility wind integration and operating impact state of the art. IEEE transactions on power systems, 22(3), 900-908.
44. Snyder, B., & Kaiser, M. J. (2009). Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy. Renewable Energy, 34(6), 1567-1578.
45. Swofford, J., and Slattery, M. (2010). Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy policy, 38(5), 2508-2519.
46. Tsay, M. Y. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of hydrogen energy literature, 1965–2005. Scientometrics, 75(3), 421-438.
47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Received from: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policy-act#:~:text=The%20Energy%20Policy%20Act%20(EPA,%3B%20(10)%20energy%20tax%20incentives (10.03.2022).
48. Walford, C. A. (2006). Wind turbine reliability: understanding and minimizing wind turbine operation and maintenance costs (No. SAND2006-1100). Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA (United States).
49. Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 97(5), 261-275.
50. Warren, C. R., and McFadyen, M. (2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land use policy, 27(2), 204-213.
51. White, C., Halpern, B. S., and Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(12), 4696-4701.
52. Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable energy, 21(1), 49-64.
53. Wolsink, M. (2007). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy policy, 35(5), 2692-2704.
54. Ydersbond, I. M., & Korsnes, M. S. (2016). What drives investment in wind energy? A comparative study of China and the European Union. Energy Research & Social Science, 12, 50-61.
55. Zhang, J., Yu, Q., Zheng, F., Long, C., Lu, Z., and Duan, Z. (2016). Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. Journal of the
56. Zhang, X., Estoque, R. C., Xie, H., Murayama, Y., and Ranagalage, M. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services. PloS one, 14(2), e0210707.