Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

A strong relative preference for wind turbines in the United States among those who live near them

Nature Energy volume 4, pages 311–320 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Studies on social acceptance of wind power projects typically evaluate wind power in isolation, or as a choice between wind and no wind. However, at a societal level, the choice is not limited to whether, how or where wind turbines should be sited, but whether society should generate electricity by wind or from some other source. Consequently, it is important to understand whether those living near local wind projects prefer them relative to other local power projects. Here, we show that approximately 90% of individuals in the United States who live within 8 km of a wind turbine prefer their local wind project to a centralized power plant sited a similar distance away. Wind is also preferred three to one over solar among the approximately two-thirds who have a preference. These results are relatively consistent across states with different characteristics, suggesting a strong social preference for wind turbines among their neighbours.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Relative preferences between wind power and other means of electricity generation.
Fig. 2: Relative preferences for wind as a function of local wind project attitude.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

A copy of the survey and codebook for the database is available at https://emp.lbl.gov/projects/wind-neighbor-survey. A de-identified version of the basic database is available upon reasonable request from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with extensions available from the corresponding author upon approval to ensure proper handling of human subjects data.

References

  1. O’Connor, P. A. & Cleveland, C. J. U.S. energy transitions 1780–2010. Energy 7, 7955–7993 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M. & Eyre, N. Geographies of energy transition: space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53, 331–340 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 2017 Wind Technologies Market Report (US Department of Energy, 2018); https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2017-wind-technologies-market-report

  4. Utility-Scale Solar: Empirical Trends in Project Technology, Cost, Performance, and PPA Pricing in the United States—2018 Edition (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2018); http://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl_utility_scale_solar_2018_edition_report.pdf

  5. Carley, S. State renewable energy electricity policies: an empirical evaluation of effectiveness. Energy Policy 37, 3071–3081 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bird, L. et al. Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States. Energy Policy 33, 1397–1407 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A. & Pidgeon, N. F. Nuclear power after Japan: the social dimensions. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 53, 3–14 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lucas, H. C. & Goh, J. M. Disruptive technology: how Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. J. Strategic Inf. Syst. 18, 46–55 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaufman, N. & Krause, E. Putting a Price on Carbon: Ensuring Equity (World Resources Institute, 2016); https://www.wri.org/publication/putting-price-carbon-ensuring-equity

  10. Archer, C. L., Mirzaeisefat, S. & Lee, S. Quantifying the sensitivity of wind farm performance to array layout options using large-eddy simulation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4963–4970 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wolsink., M. Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. Landsc. Res. 43, 542–561 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pasqualetti, M. J. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101, 907–917 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thayer, R. L. & Freeman, C. M. Altamont: public perceptions of a wind energy landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 14, 379–398 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolsink, M. Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 287–295 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaede, J. & Rowlands, I. H. Visualizing social acceptance research: a bibliometric review of the social acceptance literature for energy technology and fuels. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 142–158 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rand, J. & Hoen, B. Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: what have we learned? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29, 135–148 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ellis, G. & Ferraro, G. The Social Acceptance of Wind Energy: Where we Stand and the Path Ahead—Study (Joint Research Centre, 2016); https://doi.org/10.2789/696070

  18. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & Bürer, M. J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35, 2683–2691 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Veelen, B. & Haggett, C. Uncommon ground: the role of different place attachments in explaining community renewable energy projects. Sociol. Ruralis 57, 533–554 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Devine-Wright, P. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 426–441 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Firestone, J. et al. Reconsidering barriers to wind power projects: community engagement, developer transparency and place. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 20, 370–386 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bidwell, D. Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions. Nat. Energy 1, 16051 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sonnberger, M. & Ruddat, M. Disclosing citizens’ perceptual patterns of the transition to renewable energy in Germany. Nat. Cult. 13, 253–280 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Musall, F. D. & Kuik, O. Local acceptance of renewable energy—a case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 39, 3252–3260 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schweizer-Ries, P. Energy sustainable communities: environmental psychological investigations. Energy Policy 36, 4126–4135 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fast, S. et al. Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes. Nat. Energy 1, 15028 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoen, B. et al. Spatial hedonic analysis of the effects of US wind energy facilities on surrounding property values. J. Real Estate Finance Econ. 51, 22–51 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Levy, J. I. et al. Carbon reductions and health co-benefits from US residential energy efficiency measures. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034017 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use (National Academies, 2010); https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12794/hidden-costs-of-energy-unpriced-consequences-of-energy-production-and

  33. Turconi, R., Boldrin, A. & Astrup, T. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 555–565 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. F. Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 59–69 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ansolabehere, S. & Konisky, D. M. Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opin. Q. 73, 566–577 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L. & MacGregor, D. G. Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol. 24, S35–S40 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Truelove, H. B. Energy source perceptions and policy support: image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy Policy 45, 478–489 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. & Rehner, R. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 174–182 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Millstein, D., Wiser, R., Bolinger, M. & Barbose, G. The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17134 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Levy, J. L. & Spengler, J. D. Modeling the benefits of power plant emission controls in Massachusetts. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 52, 5–18 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Weiss, E. B. In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity (Transnational Publishers & United Nations Univ., 1989).

  42. Greenberg, M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37, 3242–3249 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Greenberg, M. & Truelove, H. B. Energy choices and risk beliefs: is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Anal. 31, 819–831 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Devine-Wright, P., Devine-Wright, H. & Cowell, R. What do we Know About Overcoming Barriers to Infrastructure Sitting in Local Areas? (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2016); http://www.placewise.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DECC_Infrastructure_PlacewiseLtd.pdf

  45. Aitken, M. Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 38, 6066–6075 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bates, A. & Firestone, J. A comparative assessment of offshore wind power demonstration projects in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 192–205 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Carlisle, J. E., Solan, D., Kane, S. L. & Joe, J. Utility-scale solar and public attitudes toward siting: a critical examination of proximity. Land Use Policy 58, 491–501 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Moore, S. & Hackett, E. J. The construction of technology and place: concentrating solar power conflicts in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 67–78 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Firestone, J., Kempton, W. & Krueger, A. Public acceptance of offshore wind power projects in the United States. Wind Energy 12, 183–202 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. The United States Wind Turbine Database (United States Geological Survey, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and American Wind Energy Association, 2015); https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/data/

  51. Dillman, D. A., Smyth J. D. & Christian, L. M. Internet, Mail and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 4th edn (John Wiley & Sons, 2014).

  52. Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P. & Tangeland, T. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: a critical discussion. Energy Policy 58, 1–5 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Decennial Census of the Population and Housing (US Census Bureau, 2010); https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/data/datasets.2010.html

  54. What is Rural? (US Department of Agriculture, 2016); https://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/what-is-rural

  55. Farms and Land in Farms 2017 release (US Department of Agriculture, 2018); https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/5712m6524?locale=en

  56. Vincent, C. H., Hanson, L. A. & Argueta, C. N. Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data Report R42346 (Congressional Research Service, 2017); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

  57. Summary Report: 2015 National Resources Inventory (US Department of Agriculture, 2018); https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/nri/

  58. Direct Normal Solar Irradiance 1998–2016 Maps (National Renewal Energy Laboratory, 2016);https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/pdfs/solar_dni_2018_01.pdf

  59. Frequently asked questions: which states produce the most coal? US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=69&t=2 (2018).

  60. Electric Power Annual 2017 (US Energy Information Administration, 2018); https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

  61. Historical election results. National Archives and Records Administration https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.html (2018).

  62. Solon, G., Haider, S. J. & Wooldridge, J. M. What are we weighting for? J. Hum. Resour. 50, 301–316 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Tiebout, C. A pure theory of local expenditures. J. Polit. Econ. 64, 416–424 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the United States Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for making the dataset publicly available, and the researchers on that project (in particular, the project investigator B. Hoen) for undertaking the survey and preparing the dataset.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Jeremy Firestone

  2. College of Arts and Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Hannah Kirk

Authors
  1. Jeremy Firestone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah Kirk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.F. devised the research question, gathered additional data, performed statistical analysis and interpretation of the data, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. H.K. performed statistical analysis, reviewed, commented on and edited the manuscript, and prepared draft figures.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Firestone.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.F. has held various roles related to a 2-MW wind turbine adjacent to the University of Delaware’s coastal campus since its commissioning in 2010, and has been a director of the legal entity First State Marine Wind, which has owned and operated the wind turbine since 2016. The University of Delaware has majority control of First State Marine Wind; Siemens Gamesa, the manufacturer, is the minority partner. The turbine provides electricity to the University of Delaware campus and to Lewes, Delaware. Net proceeds are used for research and graduate fellowships. He has held these positions at the desire of his employer, the University of Delaware, and receives no compensation beyond his regular university salary for this service.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Firestone, J., Kirk, H. A strong relative preference for wind turbines in the United States among those who live near them. Nat Energy 4, 311–320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0347-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0347-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene