Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Scenicness assessment of onshore wind sites with geotagged photographs and impacts on approval and cost-efficiency


Cost-efficiency and public acceptance are competing objectives for onshore wind locations. The impact of ‘scenicness’ on these two objectives has been difficult to quantify for wind projects. We analyse the link between economic wind resources and beautiful landscapes with over 1.5 million ‘scenicness’ ratings of around 200,000 geotagged photographs from across Great Britain. We find evidence that planning applications for onshore wind are more likely to be rejected when proposed in more scenic areas. Compared to the technical potential of onshore wind of 1,700 TWh at a total cost of £280 billion, removing the 10% most scenic areas implies about 18% lower generation potential and 8–26% higher costs. We also consider connection distances to the nearest electricity network transformer, showing that the connection costs constitute up to half of the total costs. The results provide a quantitative framework for researchers and policymakers to consider the trade-offs between cost-efficiency and public acceptance for onshore wind.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Frequency distributions of scenicness values and number of votes for the wind polygons associated with planning applications.
Fig. 2: Transformers tagged in OpenStreetMap and urban and rural area classifications in Great Britain.
Fig. 3: Cumulative costs and electricity generation potentials of onshore wind in Great Britain.
Fig. 4: Cost–potential curves for four scenicness thresholds, 3.67, 4.67, 5.8 and 10, in Great Britain.
Fig. 5: Normalized marginal LCOEs and cumulative generation potential for scenicness quantiles (deciles).

Data availability

The data employed in this paper can be accessed on Figshare at Source data can be accessed at the locations specified in the main text and the Methods.


  1. Department of Business Energy Industrial Strategy. Energy and Climate Change Public Attitude Tracker, Wave 25 (2018).

  2. YouGov, Renewable UK Survey (2018).

  3. Bell, D., Gray, T., Haggett, C. & Swaffield, J. Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: public opinions and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environ. Politics 22, 115–135 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boudet, H. S. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4, 446–455 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Petrova, M. A. From NIMBY to acceptance: toward a novel framework—VESPA—for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy 86, 1280–1294 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Molnarova, K. et al. Visual preferences for wind turbines: location, numbers and respondent characteristics. J. Appl. Energy 92, 269–278 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Betakova, V., Vojar, J. & Sklenicka, P. Wind turbines location: how many and how far? Appl. Energy 151, 23–31 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35, 2705–2714 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schumacher, K. et al. Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy in different energy policy contexts: a comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region. Energy Policy 126, 315–332 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sonnberger, M. & Ruddat, M. Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany. Technol. Soc. 51, 56–65 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Warren, C., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. & Birnie, R. Green on green: public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 48, 853–875 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Department for Communities and Local Government. Final Decision on Scout Moor Wind Farm Application (2017).

  15. Seresinhe, C. I., Preis, T., MacKerron, G. & Moat, H. S. Happiness is greater in more scenic locations. Sci. Rep. 9, 4498 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bornstein, R. D. & Johnson, D. S. Urban-rural wind velocity differences. Atmos. Environ. 11, 597–604 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ueckerdt, F. et al. System LCOE: What are the Costs of Variable Renewables? (2013).

  18. Price, J., Mainzer, K., Petrović, S., Zeyringer, M. & McKenna, R. The implications of landscape visual impact on future highly renewable power systems: a case study for Great Britain. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. (2020).

  19. Dalla Longa, F. et al. Wind Potentials for EU and Neighbouring Countries: Input Datasets for the JRC-EU-TIMES Model JRC109698, EUR 29083 EN (Publications Office of the European Union, 2018);

  20. Zeyringer, M. et al. Designing low-carbon power systems for Great Britain in 2050 that are robust to the spatiotemporal and inter-annual variability of weather. Nat. Energy 3, 395–403 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ryberg, D. S., Tulemat, Z., Stolten, D. & Robinius, M. Uniformly constrained land eligibility for onshore European wind power. Renew. Energy 146, 921–931 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Staffell, I. & Pfenninger, S. Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output. Energy 114, 1224–1239 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bosch, J., Staffell, I. & Hawkes, A. Temporally-explicit and spatially-resolved global onshore wind energy potentials. Energy (2017).

  24. Höltinger, S. et al. Austria’s wind energy potential – a participatory modeling approach to assess socio-political and market acceptance. Energy Policy 98, 49–61 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jäger, T., McKenna, R. & Fichtner, W. The feasible onshore wind energy potential in Baden-Württemberg: a bottom-up methodology considering socio-economic constraints. Renew. Energy 96, 662–675 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Harper, M. et al. Assessing socially acceptable locations for onshore wind energy using a GIS-MCDA approach. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 14, 160–169 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jobert, A., Laborgne, P. & Mimler, S. Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 35, 2751–2760 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kontogianni, A., Tourkolias, C., Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D. Planning globally, protesting locally: patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms. Renew. Energy 66, 170–177 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Renewable Energy Planning Database (Department of Business Energy Industrial Strategy, accessed 20 February 2019);

  30. Harper, M. et al. Identifying key influences for planning acceptance of onshore wind turbines. In 30th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimisation, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems (San Diego, July 2017).

  31. Roddis, P. et al. The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: an energy justice analysis. Appl. Energy (2018).

  32. McKenna, R., Hollnaicher, S., Ostmann v. d. Leye, P. & Fichtner, W. Cost-potentials for large onshore wind turbines in Europe. Energy 83, 217–229 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ryberg, D. et al. The future of European onshore wind energy potential: detailed distribution and simulation of advanced turbine designs. Energy (2019).

  34. Rinne, E. et al. Effects of turbine technology and land use on wind power resource potential. Nat. Energy 3, 494–500 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  35. McKenna, R. et al. Reviewing methods and assumptions for high-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy potential assessments. Preprint at (2021).

  36. Seresinhe, C. I., Preis, T. & Moat, H. S. Using deep learning to quantify the beauty of outdoor places. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170170 (2017).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Hevia-Koch, P. & Jacobsen, H. K. Comparing offshore and onshore wind development considering acceptance costs. Energy Policy 125, 9–19 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Seresinhe, C. I., Preis, T. & Moat, H. S. Quantifying the impact of scenic environments on health. Sci. Rep. 5, 16899 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Walker, G. et al. Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 38, 2655–2663 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Walker, G. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36, 4401–4405 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Brown, K. et al. Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability. Glob. Environ. Change 56, 11–17 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Devine-Wright, P. & Batel, S. My neighbourhood, my country or my planet? The influence of multiple place attachments and climate change concern on social acceptance of energy infrastructure. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 110–120 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Palmer, J. F. & Hoffmann, R. E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 149–161 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Palmer, J. & Sullivan, R. Visual prominence as perceived in photographs and in-situ. J. Digital Landsc. Archit. 5-2020, 286–294 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stamps, A. E. Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Percept. Mot. Skills 713, 907–913 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Suskevics, M. et al. Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: what are the roles of planning procedures and participation? Land Use Policy 81, 311–323 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stadler, B., Purves, Ross S. & Tomko, M. Exploring the relationship between land cover and subjective evaluation of scenic beauty through user generated content. In 25th International Cartographic Conference (Paris, July 2011).

  48. Roth, M. et al. Landscape as an area as perceived by people: empirically-based nationwide modelling of scenic landscape quality in germany. J. Digital Landsc. Archit. 3, 129–137 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bertsch, V., Hall, M., Weinhardt, C. & Fichtner, W. Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: empirical insights for Germany. Energy 114, 465–477 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wolsink, M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11, 1188–1207 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kortsch, T., Hildebrand, J. & Schweizer-Ries, P. Acceptance of biomass plants – results of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark. Renew. Energy 83, 690–697 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Leibenath, M. & Lintz, G. Governance of energy landscapes between pathways, people and politics. Landsc. Res. 43, 471–475 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Drechsler, M. et al. Efficient and equitable spatial allocation of renewable power plants at the country scale. Nat. Energy 2, 17124 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  55. UK Protected Area Datasets (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, accessed 10 March 2019);

  56. National Parks (August 2016) Full Extent Boundaries in Great Britain (ONS, accessed 10 March 2019);

  57. McFadden, D. in Frontiers in Econometrics (ed. Zarembka, P.) 105–142 (Academic Press, 2013).

  58. OpenStreetMap (OSM, accessed 16 March 2020);

  59. ukcp09: Gridded Datasets of Monthly values – Mean Wind Speed (Knots) (Met Office, accessed 29 March 2020);

  60. Digest Of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): Renewable Sources Of Energy (Department of Business Energy Industrial Strategy, accessed 14 March 2020);

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

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lucke, D. Akzeptanz. Legitimität in der Abstimmungsgesellschaft (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 1995);

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

    Google Scholar 

  64. Rau, I., Schweizer-Ries, P. & Hildebrand, J. 2012. in Vulnerability, Risks, and Complexity: Impacts of Global Change on Human Habitats Vol. 3 (eds Kabisch, S. et al.) 177–190 (Hogrefe, 2012).

  65. Akaike, H. in Second International Symposium on Information Theory (ed. Petrov, B. N. and Csaki, F.) 267–281 (Akademiai Kiado, 1973).

  66. Shapefiles for the UK Boundaries (Office for National Statistics, 2019);

  67. Digest Of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): Electricity (Department of Business Energy Industrial Strategy, accessed 14 March 2020);

Download references


We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of D. Schlund, who carried out some of the wind analysis whilst a Student Assistant at KIT, as well as C. Moutard, on whose Master’s Thesis at DTU this article builds (Assessing the ‘acceptable’ onshore wind potential in the UK, 2019, M. D’Andrea, K. Paidis and T. Jaenicke supported the preparation of early versions of the manuscript whilst Student Assistants at DTU. I.M. gratefully acknowledges financial support from Kraks Fond, Copenhagen ( T.P. and H.S.M. are grateful for support from The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1 (including awards TU/B/000006 and TU/B/000008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



R.M. conceived and designed the research. R.M., J.M.W., I.M., S.P. and K.M. carried out the analysis. R.M., J.M.W., I.M., S.P., K.M., T.P. and H.S.M. contributed to analysis design and interpretation. T.P. and H.S.M. provided the scenicness data. R.M. led the preparation and revision of the manuscript. R.M., J.W., I.M., S.P., K.M., T.P. and H.S.M. drafted text and edited the manuscript. R.M. provided institutional and material support for the research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. McKenna.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks James Palmer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information, Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Source data for Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data for Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Source data for Fig. 3.

Source Data Fig. 4

Source data for Fig. 4.

Source Data Fig. 5

Source data for Fig. 5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKenna, R., Weinand, J.M., Mulalic, I. et al. Scenicness assessment of onshore wind sites with geotagged photographs and impacts on approval and cost-efficiency. Nat Energy 6, 663–672 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

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