Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wind Power: Basic Challenge Concerning Social Acceptance

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Renewable Energy Systems

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Attitude:

Disposition to evaluate a psychological object – the attitude object –, representing a summary evaluation of this object captured in such attribute dimensions as good–bad, harmful–beneficial, pleasant–unpleasant, and likable–dislikable.

Attribute:

Character ascribed to an attitude object about which an actor may hold a belief (expectancy) and an evaluation (value).

Collaborative planning:

Planning with delegated responsibility to stakeholders who engage in interest-based negotiation about a plan or a project.

Community:

A body of people viewed collectively, e.g., the local community surrounding a wind farm location or a community holding a collective interest.

Discourse:

A shared way of apprehending the world; in this case, reflecting how the environment (including wind power implementation) is interpreted and given meaning.

Framing:

The way an issue (or an attribute) is defined and presented by actors – biased by their own perspective – in order to affect the perception of the issue by others: to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others.

Innovation:

A change of ideas, that becomes manifest in products, processes, or organizations, that are applied successfully in practice.

Institutions:

Existing patterns of behavior, determined by existing societal rules “the rules of the game in a society.”

Landscape:

The part of the environment that is the human habitat as it is perceived and understood through the medium of our perceptions.

NIMBY:

Depreciative interpretation and characterization of opposition to a facility: an attitude of objection to the siting of a facility in the proximity (“backyard”), while by implication raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere; acronym of “not-in-my-back-yard.”

Place identity:

Human binding to the physical environment at a certain place or area associated concepts: place attachment, sense of place.

Public acceptance:

The degree to which a phenomenon is taken by the general public, the degree to which the phenomenon is liked by individual citizens.

REFIT:

Renewable energy feed-in tariff, a class of financial procurement systems creating a priority market for renewable generated electricity by guaranteed access to the grid with a long-term fixed price per kilowatt-hour.

RPS:

Renewable Portfolio Standards, a class of financial procurement systems based on certificates issued for renewable generated electricity – “green certificates” – with a legal quote for renewables creating a market for trading certificates.

Smart grid:

Power grid consisting of a network of integrated microgrids that can monitor and heal itself.

Social acceptance:

The degree of which a phenomenon (e.g., wind power implementation) is taken by relevant social actors, based on the degree how the phenomenon is (dis-)liked by these actors.

Socio-technical system:

A system be made up of scientific and technological, as well as socioeconomic and organizational components.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Carlman I (1982) Wind energy potential in Sweden: the importance of non-technical factors. In: Fourth international symposium wind energy systems, Stockholm, pp 335–348, 21–24 Sept 1982

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bosley P, Bosley K (1988) Public acceptability of California’s wind energy development: three studies. Wind Eng 12:311–318

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wolsink M (1986) Public acceptance of large WECS in the Netherlands. In: European wind energy conference, 1986, vol II. Raguzzi, Rome, pp 587–592

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thayer RL, Freeman C (1987) Public perceptions of a wind energy landscape. Landscape Urban Plan 14:379–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlman I (1984) The views of politicians and decision-makers on planning for the use of wind power in Sweden. In: European wind energy conference, Hamburg, pp 339–343, 22–36 Oct 1984

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wolsink M (1987) Wind power for the electricity supply of houses. Neth J House Environ Res 2:95–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aitken M (2010) Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: a critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energ Policy 38:1134–1841

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energ Policy 35:2683–2691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bijker WE, Law J (eds) (1992) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems – insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33:897–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hekkert M, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM (2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc 74:413–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobsson S, Johnson A (2000) The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energ Policy 28:625–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kamp LM, Smit REHM, Andriesse CD (2004) Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark. Energ Policy 32:1625–1637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Thelen K (1999) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2:369–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scott WR (1987) The adolescence of institutional theory. Admin Sci Quart 32: 117, 493–511

    Google Scholar 

  17. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hoogwijk M, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2004) Assessment of the global and regional geographical technical and economic potential of on-shore of wind energy. Energ Econ 26:889–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yue C-D, Min-How Y (2009) Exploring the potential of wind energy for a coastal state. Energ Policy 37:3925–3940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sovacool BK (2009) Rejecting renewables: the socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energ Policy 37:4500–4513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolsink M, Breukers S (2010) Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power international study stakeholder perspectives. J Environ Plann Man 53:535–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jessup B (2010) Plural and hybrid environmental values: a discourse analysis of the wind energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environ Polit 19:21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolsink M (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew Energ 21:49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baumeister RF, Leary MR (1995) The need to belong – desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 117:497–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rhodes RAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Polit Stud 44:652–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ackermann T, Andersson G, Söder L (2001) Distributed generation: a definition. Electr Pow Syst Res 57:105–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Devine-Wright P, Devine-Wright H (2006) Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK. Int J Glob Energ 25:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Dec 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52:27–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bang HK, Ellinger AE, Hadjimarcou J, Traichal PA (2000) Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitudes toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Market 17:449–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dinica V (2008) Initiating a sustained diffusion of wind power: the role of public-private partnerships in Spain. Energ Policy 36:3562–3571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Möller B (2006) Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Appl Energ 83:477–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Walker G, Devine-Wright P (2008) Community renewable energy: what should it mean? Energ Policy 36:497–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C (2005) The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 14:460–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Toke D (2005) Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energ Policy 33:1527–1539

    Google Scholar 

  36. European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) (2009) Wind energy: the facts. A guide to the technology, economics and future of wind power. Earthscan, London/Sterling

    Google Scholar 

  37. Freudenburg WR, Pastor SK (1992) Nimbys and lulus: stalking the syndromes. J Soc Issues 48:39–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Devine-Wright P (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energ 8:125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kahn RD (2000) Siting struggles: the unique challenge of permitting renewable energy power plants. Electr J 13:21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wolsink M (2006) Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. T I Brit Geogr 31:85–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wolsink M (1989) Attitudes and expectancies about wind turbines and wind farms. Wind Eng 13:196–206

    Google Scholar 

  42. Warren CR, Lumsden C, O’Dowd S, Birnie RV (2005) ‘Green on green’: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J Environ Plann Man 48:853–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jones CR, Eiser JR (2009) Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energ Policy 37:4604–4614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kempton W, Firestone J, Lilley J, Rouleau T, Whitaker P (2005) The off-shore wind power debate. Views Cape Cod. Coast Manage 33:119–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Devine-Wright P (2011) From backyards to places: public engagement and the emplacement of renewable energy technologies. In: Devine-Wright P (ed) Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B (2001) Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J Risk Res 4:75–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolsink M, Devilee J (2009) The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners’ perspective to fairness and community commitment. J Environ Plann Man 52:217–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Oxford English Dictionary (2010) http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl. Accessed 15 Apr 2010

  49. Dear M (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J Am Plann Assoc 58:288–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Swofford J, Slattery M (2010) Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energ Policy 38:2508–2519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Toke D, Breukers S, Wolsink M (2008) Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we account for the differences? Ren Sust Energ Rev 12:1129–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wolsink M (2007) Planning of renewables schemes. Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energ Policy 35:2692–2704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Marques AC, Fuinhas JA (2011) Drivers promoting renewable energy: a dynamic panel approach. Ren Sust Energ Rev 15:1601–1608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bohn C, Lant C (2009) Welcoming the wind? Determinants of wind power development among U.S. states. Prof Geogr 61:87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Menz FC, Vachon S (2006) The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: experiences from the states. Energ Policy 34:1786–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ohl C, Eichhorn M (2010) The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs – a case study in West Saxony. Land Use Policy 27:243–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Breukers S, Wolsink M (2007) Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: institutional capacity-building for ecological modernisation. Environ Polit 16:92–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Heiman MK, Solomon BD (2004) Power to the people: electric utility restructuring and the commitment to renewable energy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94:94–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilson EJ, Stephens J (2009) Wind deployment in the United States: states, resources, policy, and discourse. Environ Sci Technol 43:9063–9070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sabatier PA (1998) The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. J Eur Publ Pol 5:98–130

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Walker G (1995) Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy 12:49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Eurobarometer (2007) Energy technologies: knowledge, perception measures. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM (2009) Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opin Quart 73:566–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Klick H, Smith ERAN (2010) Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States. Renew Energy 35:1585–1591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives”. Ren Sust Energ Rev 11:1188–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ellis G, Barry J, Robinson C (2007) Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J Environ Plann Man 50:517–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ek K (2005) Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energ Policy 33:1677–1689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol 23:237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ellis G, Cowell R, Warren C, Strachan P, Szarka J (2009) Expanding wind power: a problem of planning or of perception? Plann Theory Pract 10:523–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Muñoz M, Oschmann V, Tabara JD (2007) Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws in the European Union. Energ Policy 35:3104–3114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lauber V (2004) REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonised community framework. Energ Policy 32:1405–1414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Toke D (2007) Renewable financial support systems and cost-effectiveness. J Cleaner Prod 15:280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Jacobsson S, Lauber V (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation – explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energ Policy 34:256–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mitchell C, Bauknecht D, Connor PM (2006) Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany. Energ Policy 34:297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Krewitt W, Nitsch J (2003) The German Renewable Energy Sources Act. An investment into the future pays off already today. Renew Energy 28:533–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Toke D (2005) Are green certificates the way forward for renewable energy? An evaluation of the UK’s Renewable obligation in the context of international comparisons. Environ Plann C 23:361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Jacobsson S, Bergek A, Finon D, Lauber V, Mitchell C, Toke D, Verbruggen A (2009) EU renewable energy support policy: faith or facts? Energ Policy 37:2143–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Toke D (2008) The EU renewables directive – what is the fuss about trading? Energ Policy 36:3001–3008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Cowell R (2007) Wind power and “the planning problem”: the experience of Wales. Eur Environ 17:291–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Bergek A (2010) Levelling the playing field? The influence of national wind power planning instruments on conflicts of interests in a Swedish county. Energ Policy 38:2357–2369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Toke D (2005) Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energ Policy 33:1527–1539

    Google Scholar 

  84. Dimitropoulos A, Kontoleon A (2009) Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energ Policy 37:1842–1854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Loring J MacLaren (2007) Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: factors influencing project success. Energ Policy 35:2648–2660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Aitken M, McDonald S, Strachan P (2008) Locating ‘power’ in wind power planning processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors. J Environ Plann Man 51:777–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Söderholm P, Ek K, Petterson M (2007) Wind power development in Sweden: global policies and local obstacles. Ren Sust Energ Rev 11:365–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Agterbosch S, Breukers S (2008) Socio-political embedding of onshore wind power in the Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia. Technol Anal Strateg Man 20:633–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Mannarini T, Roccato M, Fedi A, Rovere A (2009) Six factors fostering protest: predicting participation in locally unwanted land uses movements. Polit Psychol 30:895–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Wolsink M (2010) Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environ Impact Asses 30:302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Devlin E (2005) Factors affecting public acceptance of wind turbines in Sweden. Wind Eng 29:503–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Musall FD, Kuik O (2011) Local acceptance of renewable energy – A case study from southeast Germany. Energ Policy 39:3252–3260

    Google Scholar 

  93. Warren CR, McFadyen M (2010) Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 27:204–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hindmarsh R, Matthews C (2008) Deliberative speak at the turbine face: community engagement, wind farms, and renewable energy transitions. J Environ Pol Plann 10:217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Graham JB, Stephenson JR, Smith IJ (2009) Public perceptions of wind energy developments: case studies from New Zealand. Energ Policy 37:3348–3357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wester-Herber M (2004) Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts – the role of place-identity in risk perception. Environ Sci Pol 7:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Jackson JB (1994) A sense of place, a sense of time. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  98. Devine-Wright P, Howes Y (2010) Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J Environ Psychol 30:271–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Vorkinn M, Riese H (2001) Environmental concern in a local context. The significance of place attachment. Environ Behav 33:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Stedman RC (2002) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Res 16:671–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Woods M (2003) Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in Mid Wales. Sociol Ruralis 43:171–288

    Google Scholar 

  102. Bergmann A, Colombo S, Hanley N (2008) Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecol Econ 65:616–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Moragues-Faus AM, Ortiz-Miranda D (2010) Local mobilization against wind farm developments in Spanish rural areas: new actors in the regulation arena. Energ Policy 38:4232–4240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Cowell R, Bristow G, Munday M (2011) Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J Environ Plann Man 54:539–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Dincer I (2000) Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review. Ren Sust Energ Rev 4:157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. delRio P, Burguillo M (2008) Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability: towards a theoretical framework. Ren Sust Energ Rev 12:1325–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Faulin J, Lera F, Pintor JM, García J (2006) The outlook for renewable energy in Navarre: an economic profile. Energ Policy 34:2201–2216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Hillebrand B, Buttermann H, Behringer J, Bleuerl M (2006) The expansion of renewable energies and employment effects in Germany. Energ Policy 34:3484–3494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Kaldellis JK, Zafirakis D (2007) Present situation and future prospects of electricity generation in Aegean Archipelago islands. Energ Policy 35:4623–4639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Dalton GJ, Lockington DA, Baldock TE (2008) A survey of tourist attitudes to renewable energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation. Renew Energy 33:2174–2185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Frantál B, Kunc J (2011) Wind turbines in tourism landscapes: Czech experience. Ann Tourism Res 38:499–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Riddington G, McArthur D, Harrison T, Gibson H (2010) Assessing the economic impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland: GIS, surveys and policy outcomes. Int J Tourism Res 12:237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Lilley MB, Firestone J, Kempton W (2010) The effect of wind power installations on coastal tourism. Energies 3:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Gross C (2007) Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia. The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energ Policy 35:2727–2736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Mumford J, Gray D (2010) Consumer engagement in alternative energy – can the regulators and suppliers be trusted? Energ Policy 38:2664–2671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F (1997) The cost of price-incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding out. Am Econ Rev 87:746–755

    Google Scholar 

  117. Aitken M (2010) Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energ Policy 38:6066–6075

    Google Scholar 

  118. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  119. Breukers S, Wolsink M (2007) Wind power in changing institutional landscapes: an international comparison. Energ Policy 35:2737–2750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Zarnikau J (2003) Consumer demand for ‘green’ power and energy efficiency. Energ Policy 31:1661–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Wüstenhagen R, Bilharz M (2006) Green energy market development in Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energ Policy 34:1681–1696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. MacKay DJC (2008) Sustainable energy – without the hot air. UIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  123. Bolinger MA (2005) Making European-style community wind power development work in the US. Ren Sust Energ Rev 8:556–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Han JY, Mol APJ, Lu YL, Zhang L (2009) Onshore wind power development in China: challenges behind a successful story. Energ Policy 37:2941–2951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Sanden BA (2008) ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive externalities’: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technol Anal Strateg 20:575–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Bird L, Bolinger M, Gagliano T, Wiser R, Brown M, Parsons B (2005) Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States. Energ Policy 33:1397–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Lewis JI, Wiser RH (2007) Fostering a renewable energy technology industry: an international comparison of wind industry support mechanisms. Energ Policy 35:1844–1857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Bansal P, Roth K (2000) Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manage J 43:717–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Kaldellis JK, Kavadias KA, Paliatsos AG (2004) Environmental impacts of wind energy applications: "Myth or reality?". Fresen Environ Bull 13:413–423

    Google Scholar 

  130. Bishop I (2002) Determination of thresholds of visual impact: the case of wind turbines. Environ Plann B 29:707–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Kaldellis JK (2006) Evaluation of Greek wind parks visual impact “public attitude and experts’ opinion”. Fresen Environ Bull 15:1419–1426

    Google Scholar 

  132. Brittan GG (2001) Wind, energy, landscape: reconciling nature and technology. Philos Geogr 4:169–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Mercer D (2003) The great Australian wind rush and the devaluation of landscape amenity. Austral Geogr 34:91–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Johansson M, Laike T (2007) Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy 10:435–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Zografos C, Martinez-Allier J (2009) The politics of landscape value: a case study of wind farm conflict in rural Catalonia. Environ Plann A 41:1726–1744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Bishop ID, Miller DR (2007) Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renew Energ 32:814–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Ladenburg J, Dubgaard A (2009) Preferences of coastal zone user groups regarding the siting of offshore wind farms. Ocean Coast Manage 52:233–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Haggett C (2008) Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics and public perception of offshore wind farms. J Environ Pol Plann 10:289–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Ladenburg J (2009) Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience. Appl Energ 86:380–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Gonzalez MI, Estevez B (2005) Participation, communication and negotiation in environmental conflicts: offshore wind energy in the Trafalgar Sea area. Arbor-Ciencia Pensamiento y Cultura 181:377–392

    Google Scholar 

  141. Phadke R (2010) Steel forests or smoke stacks: the politics of visualisation in the Cape Wind controversy. Environ Polit 19:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Wolsink M (2010) Near-shore wind power – protected seascapes, environmentalists’ attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy 27:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Bell S (1999) Landscape: pattern, perception and process. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  144. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape Urban Plan 44:177–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Parsons R, Daniel TC (2002) Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape Urban Plan 60:43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Jay S (2010) Planners to the rescue: spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. Mar Pollut Bull 60:493–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Gray T, Haggett C, Bell D (2005) Offshore windfarms and commercial fisheries in the UK: a study in stakeholder consultation. Ethics Place Environ 8:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Michler-Cieluch T, Krause G, Buck BH (2009) Reflections on integrating operation and maintenance activities of offshore wind farms and mariculture. Ocean Coast Manage 52:57–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Sovacool BK (2009) Contextualizing avian mortality: a preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel and nuclear electricity. Energ Policy 37:2241–2248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Solli J (2010) Where the eagles dare? Enacting resistance to wind farms through hybrid collectives. Environ Polit 19:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Nadaï A, Labussière O (2010) Birds, wind and the making of wind power landscapes in Aude, Southern France. Landscape Res 35:209–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Verkuijlen E, Westra CA (1984) Shadow hindrance by wind turbines. In: European wind energy conference, Hamburg, pp 356–361

    Google Scholar 

  153. Wolsink M, Sprengers M (1993) Windturbine noise: a new environmental threat? In: Vallet M (ed) Noise as a public health problem, vol 2. INRETS, Bron, pp 235–238

    Google Scholar 

  154. Pedersen E, Persson-Waye K (2007) Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med 2007:480–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Pedersen E, Larsman P (2008) The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. J Environ Psychol 28:379–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Dalby S, Mackenzie F (1997) Re-conceptualising local community: environment, identity and threat. Area 29:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Walker G, Devine-Wright P, Hunter S, High H, Evans B (2010) Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energ Policy 38:2655–2663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Higgs G, Berry R, Kidner D, Langford M (2008) Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: prospects and challenges. Land Use Policy 25:596–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Bishop ID, Stock C (2010) Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energy installations. Renew Energ 35:2348–2355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Chicco G, Mancarefla P (2009) Distributed multi-generation: a comprehensive view. Ren Sust Energ Rev 13:535–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Gardner J, Car-Cornish SG, Ashworth PN (2008) Exploring the acceptance of a domestic distributed energy market in Australia. Australasian J Environ Man 15:93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Charles D (2009) Renewables test IQ of the grid. Science 324:172–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Stadler I (2008) Power grid balancing of energy systems with high renewable energy penetration by demand response. Utilit Policy 16:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Green RC, Wang L, Alam M (2011) The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on distributed networks: a review and outlook. Ren Sust Energ Rev 15:544–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Marris E (2008) Upgrading the grid. Nature 454:570–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  • Agterbosch S (2006) Empowering wind power. On social and institutional conditions affecting the performance of entrepreneurs in the wind power supply market in the Netherlands. Netherland Geographical Studies 351, KNAG, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Breukers SC (2007) Institutional capacity building for wind power, a geographical comparison. Vossius Pers/Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, http://dare.uva.nl/record/209600 [Open access]

  • Devine-Wright P (ed) (2011) Renewable energy and the public: from NIMBY to participation. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis G, Cowell R, Warren C, Strachan P, Szarka J, Hadwin R, Miner P, Wolsink M, Nadai A (2009) Interface. Wind power: is there a “planning problem”? Plann Theory Pract 10:521–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay SA (2008) At the margins of planning. Offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn J (2004) Local politics of renewable energy. Project planning, siting conficts and citizen participation. Lund University, PhD thesis

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay DJC (2008). Sustainable energy – without the hot air. www.withouthotair.com [Open access]

  • Nadaï A, van der Horst D (eds) (2010) Wind power planning, landscapes and publics. Land Use Policy 27(Special Issue):181–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer H (2002) The solar economy: renewable energy for a sustainable global future. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool B (2008) The dirty energy dilemma: what’s blocking clean power in the Unitied States? Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Szarka J (2007) Wind power in Europe: politics, business and society. Macmillan Palgrave, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (eds) (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation. Energ Policy 35(Special Issue):2683–2810

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Maarten Wolsink

Authors
  1. Maarten Wolsink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maarten Wolsink .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Biomass Research Centre, Leipzig, Germany

    Martin Kaltschmitt

  2. Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

    Martin Kaltschmitt

  3. Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Nickolas J. Themelis

  4. Ormat Technologies, Inc., Reno, NV, USA

    Lucien Y. Bronicki

  5. Royal Institute of Technology, Electric Power Systems, Stockholm, Sweden

    Lennart Söder

  6. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean And Earth Science And Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Luis A. Vega

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Wolsink, M. (2013). Wind Power: Basic Challenge Concerning Social Acceptance. In: Kaltschmitt, M., Themelis, N.J., Bronicki, L.Y., Söder, L., Vega, L.A. (eds) Renewable Energy Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5820-3_88

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation