Abstract

Scoping and Framing Social Opposition 

to U.S. Wind Projects

E. Lantz & L. Flowers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 

Results Continued

Historical barriers to wind power include cost and 

reliability. However, rapid growth has increased the 

footprint of wind power in the U.S., and some parts of 

the country have begun to observe conflicts between 

local communities and wind energy development. 

Thus, while questions of economic viability and the 

ability of grid operators to effectively manage wind 

energy have become less significant, community 

acceptance issues have emerged as a barrier to wind 

and associated transmission projects. Increasing 

community acceptance is likely to be a growing 

h ll th i d i d t k l t i it t

Widely recognized barriers include:

• Aesthetics

• Public safety (structural failure, ice throws)

• Public health (lights, sound, shadow flicker)

• Impacts on land or real estate values

• Impacts on local industry (e.g., tourism)

• Reduced quality of life (e.g., industrialization

of an area or nuisance related to sound etc.)

• Wildlife/ habitat impacts

Less commonly cited barriers include:

• An absence of public participation in the 

planning process

• Distribution of project benefits and costs 

• Place attachment and the cultural value of 

landscape

• Public distrust of outside developers

• Exclusionary or misleading developer 

communication strategies

Despite variable perspectives among stakeholder groups and less than overwhelming data 

specific to U.S. projects, this research suggests that there are a common set of community level 

barriers that frequently appear in localities observing opposition to wind projects. 

Objectives

challenge as the wind industry seeks electricity sector 

Local opposition to wind power projects has emerged as a penetration levels approaching 20%. market barrier and is likely to become increasingly important as 

wind energy’s footprint grows. (PIX#17247)

This work highlights the perceived attributes of wind energy that are used as a basis to oppose wind energy 

and articulates strategies that have successfully resolved issues of social opposition. Coverage of broad 

societal perspectives is considered but the primary emphasis is on public acceptance at the project level.

Project Goals

• Identify the primary issues upon which individuals and organizations oppose wind energy projects

Hi hli ht t k l d f i d i t d t il d i th l t t t h i l t d

Best Available Knowledge

• Wind turbine noise does not result in any known human disease 

however, noise from wind turbines may result in annoyance; other 

potential public health issues (e.g., shadow flicker) are 

manageable with existing industry best practices (Colby et al. 

2009)

• Local ownership models increase local economic impacts (Lantz 

and Tegen 2009)

• Analysis of more than 7,000 real estate transactions occurring in a 

fi il di f i d t bi i t ll ti h i ifi t

Wildlife/ habitat impacts communication strategies

The industry has sought to address some of these issues and a 

robust body of knowledge can be used to inform communities where 

wind projects are under development.

• Highlight current knowledge of wind energy impacts, as detailed in the latest technical reports and

recent industry experience.

• Articulate development strategies and land use planning models that have been effective in mitigating 

social opposition to wind energy.

• Assess remaining questions and identify specific areas of study that could improve the industry’s ability 

to address social acceptance barriers.

Wind energy’s footprint 

will grow and a larger 

footprint means wind 

energy’s impacts will be 

experienced by broader

five mile radius of wind turbine installations shows no significant

impacts on real estate prices (Hoen et al. 2009).

• Avian risks are generally risks to individual birds not species; 

Notable concerns remain with respect to bat fatalities and 

displacement of specific species including the sage grouse and 

prairie chicken habitat (Arnett et al. 2007, Shaffer and Johnson 

2008).

• Non-participating project neighbors may bear a disproportionate 

share of wind energy’s negative impacts and have little say in 

siting decisions; these conditions tend to contribute to negative 

feelings about wind energy (Pedersen et al. 2007).

Early engagement and community 

research can help to identify local 

champions, an important component of 

any successful mitigation strategy. 

(PIX#17248)

Develop a complete Develop a communityStrategies for Mitigating 

Opposition 

Project-level strategies: 

experienced by broader

segments of the 

population, potentially 

complicating community 

acceptance challenges. Meta-level strategies: 

• Contribute to 

development of clear 

regulatory policy

• Allocate resources for 

society wide education

• Strive to improve upon 

i d t b t ti

Maintain transparent 

and frequent 

communication that 

begins early and 

extends across all 

stakeholders

and context-specific 

outreach plan tailored to 

local stakeholders

understanding of 

community dynamics 

and constituents

Obtain third-party 

representation to provide 

an independent Promote attendance 

t bli ti

Spend time educating

local officials and 

community members about 

wind energy’s local and 

national benefits

Empower local 

champions

Leverage paid (as 

well as earned) 

media

Tailor your project to 

local culture and 

historical contexts

Utilize state-of-the-art 

visualization technology

pp

Compiled from industry input and contributions 

January & February 2010

The black open square in the center of a state represents the land area 

needed for a single wind farm to produce the projected installed capacity 

in that state. The brown square represents the actual land area that 

Methods

Conclusions and Remaining Questions

industry best practices p

perspective at public meetings visualization technology

to provide factual 

portrayals of the

project

There is a robust body of knowledge detailing wind energy’s impacts that can be used to inform and 

educate concerned citizenry and public officials. Continued implementation and improvement of best 

practices is suggested to assist in increasing community acceptance. Finally, there are successful models 

for engaging communities and stakeholders early and often in wind project (and transmission) planning. 

Wind energy footprint in 2030 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 (DOE 2008).

Funding for this work was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Technology Program. The 

work was carried out by NREL as part the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Energy Task 28: 

Social Acceptance of Wind Energy. 

Research was conducted on three fronts. First, news sources and websites were searched for articles 

and content relevant to wind energy and social acceptance. Second, public reports and peer reviewed 

journal articles detailing wind energy’s impacts and public perceptions were reviewed. Finally, input and 

contributions were solicited from a collection of stakeholders including: Nevertheless, a few specific questions remain and continued study may be helpful. (1) Individual's living 

immediately adjacent to wind facilities (i.e., within one mile) appear to experience the greatest direct

would be dedicated to the wind turbines (2% of the black open square)

References

Arnett, E.B., D.B. Inkley, D.H. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, S. Manes, A.M. Manville, R. Mason, M. Morrison, M.D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. (2007). Impacts 

of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. Issue 2007-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Colby W D ; Dobie R ; Leventhall G ; Lipscomb D M ; McCunney R J Seilo M T ; Sondergaard B (2009) Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects:

• Academic researchers

• Industry consultants

• Municipal officials

• Advocacy groups

• Project developers 

Methods

Results

Issues of Opposition

As a somewhat nascent industry, opposition to wind power projects varies and robust data are difficult to 

come by. In addition, a 2009 pilot questionnaire among the Wind Powering America network indicates that 

the relative importance of specific social acceptance issues varies among stakeholder groups. 

In 2009 WPA solicited 

input from industry 

stakeholders in the 9.0

10.0

ng 

nt; 

)

Contribution to the Local Economy

Cost of energy

immediately adjacent to wind facilities (i.e., within one mile) appear to experience the greatest direct

impact from operating wind turbines. Better understanding the impacts this group experiences will inform 

continued development of siting best practices. (2) Understanding of the impacts from specific turbines 

could assist in developing new standards for technology performance. (3) Establishing a stronger 

quantitative link between local ownership and levels of public acceptance could assist policymakers in 

developing new policy to mitigate project opposition. (4) Improving knowledge of public perceptions of 

transmission and developing a better understanding of the allocation of costs and benefits associated 

with transmission projects can facilitate development of the transmission that will be necessary for a 

robust wind future.

The information contained in this poster is subject to a government license | Windpower 2010| Dallas, TX| May23-26, 2010 | NREL/PO-7A2-47969

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Colby, W.D.; Dobie, R.; Leventhall, G.; Lipscomb, D.M.; McCunney, R.J. Seilo, M.T.; Sondergaard, B. (2009). Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects:

An Expert Panel Review. American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. Washington D.C. 

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_CanWEA_SoundWhitePaper_12-11-09.pdf

Hoen, B.; Wiser, R.; Cappers, P.; Thayer, M.; Sethi, G. (2009). The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A 

Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. LBNL-2829E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Lantz, E.; Tegen, S. (2009). Economic Development Impacts of Community Wind Projects: A Review and Empirical Evaluation. NREL/CP-500-45555. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Pedersen, E.; Hallberg, L.R.-M.; Waye, K.P. (2007). Living in the Vicinity of Wind Turbines – A Grounded Theory Study. Qualitative Research in 

Pyschology. 4: 49-63.

Shaffer, J.A. and D.H. Johnson. 2008. Displacement Effects of Wind Developments on Grassland Birds in the Northern Great Plains. Presented at the 

Wind Wildlife Research Meeting VII, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. Wind Wildlife Research Meeting VII Plenary. October 28-29, 2008.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy 

Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply. DOE/GO-102008-2567.

Methods stakeholders in the

prioritization of ten 

specific social 

acceptance issues. 

Here the results are 

organized by 

stakeholder group 

with the most 

important issue 

represented by the 

highest ranking (i.e. 

10 – most important; 

1 – least important). 

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Advocates Industry Local Officials State Officials 

(Energy Office 

& Regulators)

Utilities

Average Rankin

(10 - most importan

1 - least important)

Cost of energy

Environmental Considerations

Energy Security

Human health and safety

Reliability

Land Use

Wildlife

Aesthetics and Property Values

Noise