1. Introduction
Wind power is a renewable energy source that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases
and aid the international commitment to reduce carbon emissions (Loring, 2006). In
compliance with the 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive the UK has proposed to derive 15%
of energy from renewable sources by 2020. As a result, in the last two decades UK onshore
wind power has become an important energy source, and in 2013 onshore wind generated 2.5%
of the UK’s electricity needs (DECC, 2013). However, the propagation of onshore wind
power throughout the UK has been highly contentious and complex, and multi-layered
attitudes towards the technology can be identified (Wolsink, 2007). Indeed, it is rare to find a
wind power proposal that has not faced conflict between affected residents, developers and
the state, with visual impact and human health concerns as key issues (Knopper and Ollson,
2011). Other problems range from potential impacts on wildlife and tourism (Jessup, 2010) to
impact on traffic and roads throughout construction (Aitken et al., 2008). Additionally, the
efficiency, reliability and cost of wind turbines for electricity, the extent of economic benefit
and job creation, and social benefits based on trade-offs between avoided energy capital and
environmental costs, have all been debated, as have challenges of engaging with local
communities (Munday et al., 2011).
Local opposition has often extended the time wind farm projects progress through the
planning system and social resistance often stifles the progress of wind power projects
(Eltham et al., 2008). Some have suggested that there could be stronger support for wind
turbines if they were locally owned, or if there were more incentives to offset costs (Munday
et al., 2011). Studies have particularly investigated change in perceptions towards wind
turbines at different stages of the planning process with some studies revealing positive
community perceptions towards established wind farms several years after installation (e.g.
Wolsink, 2007; Eltham et al., 2008). With the recent proliferation of small-scale wind farm
projects <5MW in the UK, public opinion of wind power is, therefore, a topical issue
attracting much research. Recent media and parliamentary debate, in particular, have called
for the focus to shift towards communities having more input in wind power developments.
Understanding community perceptions is, thus, a key issue.
However, Aitken (2010) argued that much of the existing wind farm perception literature
is out-of-date, involving opinion polls often funded and influenced by ‘pro-wind’ companies,
while results of ad hoc wind power surveys are not always transparent or adequately
1
scrutinised. Public opinion is constantly evolving, flexible and value laden, so the results of
one opinion poll or study will not be valid indefinitely, and ‘tick box’ based questionnaires
may not unlock potentially hidden social issues surrounding wind turbine acceptability. As
Wolsink (2000) argued, those with positive responses are less likely to come forward to
respond to planners’ agendas. Bell et al. (2005), therefore, suggested that the UK planning
system is not designed to facilitate ‘silent supporters’ of wind energy. As a result, it is unclear
whether those who are vocally opposed to wind power projects provide a representative
opinion of the entire community.
The aim of this study is, therefore, to add to existing knowledge about pre- and postinstallation perceptions towards wind farm developments at community. Based on a
community case study in Cornwall (south-west UK) where many small-scale wind farms
have been recently established, the objectives of this study are to identify reasons why
community stakeholders may support or oppose wind power proposals pre- and postinstallation, to evaluate community perceptions surrounding environmental, social and
economic impacts of wind turbines, and to identify barriers towards wind turbine installation.
The research will particularly add to current understanding of how wind power is perceived at
different stages of the planning process.
2. Pre- and post-installation perceptions of wind power: issues and debates
There is considerable interest in understanding the social acceptance and perceptions of wind
turbine proposals (e.g. Devine-Wright, 2005; Ellis et al., 2009), especially as social resistance
is often viewed as a barrier to wind power implementation (Eltham et al., 2008). ‘Social gap
theory’ and NIMBY bias are two particularly important approaches used to better understand
perceptions towards wind farms at community level. Wind energy is traditionally linked to
high levels of public support (Toke, 2005), and in the UK 66% of the public support onshore
wind with only 12% opposing it (DECC, 2012). Yet, at local levels wind turbine planning
proposals are frequently faced with negative public opinions, low success rates and lengthy
procedures (Eltham et al., 2008). The critical literature has, therefore, focused on determining
why there is a gap between this support for wind power in general and local negative opinion.
Bell et al. (2005) described this gap as ‘social gap theory’ and suggested three key reasons
for the divergence between general and local attitudes.
2
First, the democratic deficit explanation claims that a minority opposes local wind farms,
but that this minority gives the impression that their views are representative of the
community. It is those with particular educational and socio-economic profiles that are said to
have significant leverage to block wind power proposals (Toke, 2005). As a result,
communities form interest groups to prevent a development and utilise the media to enhance
their influence (Jones and Eiser, 2009). In this way the minority often control decisions,
while the ‘silent majority’ may not have a voice. However, Aitken (2010) suggested that
opposition groups only have the power to delay planning outcomes, rather than influence
them, and negative opinions will, therefore, not always lead to planning refusals as successful
opposition is context-dependent.
Second, the qualified support explanation argues that wind power is viewed positively at
community level but that support is only given if wind farms meet specific criteria, e.g. that
they should not have any visual impact on the landscape (Loring, 2006). For instance,
residents may support reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but would first consider the
impact of a specific development on local wildlife and ecology before providing support.
Aitken (2010) and Bell et al. (2005), therefore, argued that pre-determined ‘tick box’ style
opinion polls used to gauge public support for wind power will usually not account for these
conditional ‘qualified’ supporters.
Third, the self interested individual explanation is often mentioned as a reason for the
disparity between pro-environmental support at regional/national level and local behaviour
(Bell et al., 2005). This ‘NIMBYism’ (not-in-my-backyard) behaviour describes individuals
who have an abstract acceptance and/or support of the principle of renewable energy
developments but actively resist local developments (Aitken, 2010). NIMBYism is not
unique to wind power proposals and is often evident in planning scenarios protecting local
assets and, as a result, the term has been widely debated and discredited (Van der Horst, 2007;
Bailey et al., 2011). Wolsink (2007), therefore, argued that public attitudes towards wind
energy in general are fundamentally different from those towards specific wind farm projects,
and those who oppose local developments may, therefore, nonetheless be in favour of wind
power overall. The NIMBY approach is, therefore, often described as simplistic and failing to
address complicated social, economic, political and personal circumstances that may
influence public opposition towards local wind power developments (Aitken, 2010). As a
result, Devine-Wright (2005) and Graham et al. (2009) compiled a list of issues influencing
perceptions of wind power other than just NIMBYism, including political and institutional
factors, communication, personal factors (e.g. previous experience and knowledge), or socio3
economic factors. Devine-Wright (2009) particularly argued that place attachment is a key
factor, i.e. that the issue may not be the style and appearance of the turbines but the threat to
the emotional connection of an individual with ‘place’ or ‘home’. These studies have
highlighted that it would be difficult for individuals to differentiate between global issues and
localised impact as these are intertwined with others and influenced by personal
circumstances. Thus, to attribute all local objections to wind farms as NIMBY behaviour may
be too simplistic, and influences of perceptions also need to include environmental, psychosocial, and socio-institutional factors (Bailey et al., 2011).
Environmental perceptions are, thus, one of the crucial dimensions of public attitudes
towards wind farms. EWEA (2009) categorised a range of environmental, physical and
technical aspects towards wind power. These aspects can be attributes of a wind farm such as
design, size, noise, and how it integrates with the landscape, environment and culture. Visual
impact is arguably the most complex issue in the wind power debate (Wolsink, 2007).
Onshore wind power is often decentralised with a focus on ‘open’ countryside with benefit
from high wind speeds and open space for access and operation. This makes the often tall
structures highly visible in valued rural landscapes. Various studies have tried to quantify the
physical consequences and perceptions of wind turbines, including shape, colour, visibility
and size (e.g. Warren et al., 2005). Larger wind farms have been perceived more negatively
than smaller ones, with particular worries about cumulative impact of several wind turbines
close together. Yet, concerns can go beyond mere aesthetic appearance to perceived loss of
amenity, wider landscape concerns, or disruption to a person’s attachment to place (Jones and
Eiser, 2010). Wind turbines are, therefore, often perceived to be ‘out of place’, threatening
perceived values attributed to the ‘rural idyll’ (Loring, 2006). However, the value that
individuals attribute to the countryside varies from person to person, depending on
experience and memories. Judgement of visual impact is, thus, subjective, with some
disliking the appearance of wind farms and finding them ‘ugly’, whereas others only see
graceful structures (Eltham et al.,2008).
Similar issues arise with noise generated by wind turbines, either as a result of a wind
turbine itself (mechanical) or via the flow of air moving through the blades (Knopper and
Ollson, 2011). In many instances, those living in close proximity to wind turbines are more
likely to be affected by sound, which may partly explain why opposition often fades the
further turbines are sited from properties – often referred to as ‘distance-decay’ perception
change (Jones and Eiser, 2010). In addition, wind turbines are often associated with alleged
health and psychological effects such as stress, headaches and sleep disturbance, sometimes
4
referred to as ‘wind turbine syndrome’. Similarly, there has been much discussion about
shadow flicker, with impacts depending on siting and design of the turbines, topography,
weather, wind direction, and sun position (EWEA, 2009). Ecological impacts have been
equally controversial, although impact on wildlife is one of the least understood dimensions
in the wind power debate. Studies for example suggest damage to bat and bird species
through habitat disturbance or collision with turbine blades (e.g. Horn et al., 2008). Perceived
costs/benefits of wind farm developments also play an important part. Property depreciation,
in particular, is a commonly perceived cost of wind turbine installation, although there is no
clear evidence that properties near wind farms have depreciated (EWEA, 2009). Another
common conception is that wind farms spoil the landscape and make local areas less
attractive to tourists (Bergmann et al., 2008), although in the UK this subject lacks
comprehensive research (Munday et al., 2011).
Fairness and trust are, thus, important considerations in planning for wind farm
developments, and the importance of trust is emphasised throughout the community
involvement process (Toke, 2005). Opposition may intensify if there are feelings of
powerlessness towards influencing outcomes, or if a developer fails to provide sufficient
information. Communities may distrust wind farm developers, viewing them as working for
their own profit rather than public interest. Some would argue, therefore, that community
benefit/local ownership of wind farm developments is essential. To influence acceptability of
wind power schemes, a trade-off may be made between perceived impacts to the local
population and local gain such as provision of community funds, cheaper electricity,
environmental improvements or even guaranteed property values (Munday et al., 2011).
Critical commentators such as Devine-Wright (2005) and Toke (2005), therefore, advocate
local ownership of wind power projects, where benefits of community ownership may not
only be economic but also social through local involvement, influence over siting issues, and
alleviation of personal concerns.
Experience, familiarity and proximity are also seen as crucial factors
influencing
objections to wind farm proposals. As Eltham et al. (2008) argued, unfamiliarity with wind
turbines can correlate with negative and outdated preconceptions surrounding the technology,
but opposition often decreases for those directly affected by existing wind power projects,
suggesting that familiarity with wind farm technology allows communities to better
understand misconceptions such as cost and efficiency. As a result, commentators have
suggested that those who experience wind farms generally become more positive, with
several studies referring to a ‘U’-shaped curve of attitude development (e.g. Gipe, 1995;
5
Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Devine-Wright, 2005). As Figure 1 suggests, there is often a high
positive outlook towards wind energy prior to exposure, a more negative view during the
process of considering local wind power proposals, and a more positive outlook after the
wind farm has been built (Wolsink, 2007). Some commentators suggest that if there is
insufficient information from the developer, and limited experience and communication
about the wind farm proposal at development stage, preconceived public fears and
misconceptions can be exacerbated (Devine-Wright, 2005). Lack of understanding and
uncertainty may lead to the formation of local opposition groups who then realise their fears
are unfounded post-construction. However, despite indicating a positive relationship between
knowledge and acceptance of a technology, others have found no evidence of such a
correlation (e.g. Wolsink, 2007). The ‘U’ curve model of acceptance, therefore, is unlikely to
apply to every turbine installation, i.e. improvement of attitudes is not guaranteed, and
communities may continue to have genuine causes for concern (Devine-Wright, 2005) –
issues that this study will investigate in detail.
Figure 1: Pre- and post-installation acceptance of wind energy in a local area
(after Gipe, 1995; Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Devine-Wright, 2005)
Other critical studies shed further light on issues of familiarity, proximity and exposure to
turbines. Swofford and Slaterry (2010), for example, argued that acceptability of wind power
decreases the closer respondents live to existing turbines. A contrasting study by Toke (2005)
indicated that those more familiar with wind turbines were more positive towards them but
that daily exposure to over five wind turbines invokes a more negative response, shedding
light on perceived thresholds of cumulative impact. Further research based in
Ireland/Scotland by Warren et al. (2005) also suggested more positive perceptions from those
living close to existing turbines post-installation. This type of support has been termed
‘inverse NIMBYism’ where the closer a resident is to a wind turbine, the more positive their
6
perception may be. Overall this suggests that the location of turbines is key for attitudinal
impact, although other factors also play a crucial role (Van der Horst, 2007).
The discussion has highlighted the complex and often conflicting opinions and issues
surrounding perceived social, environmental and economic impacts/benefits of wind farm
developments pre- and post-installation and that several factors intertwine in complex ways
to affect residents’ pre- and post-installation perceptions of wind farms. In particular, studies
suggest varied perceptions of those living near to turbines, both pre- and post-installation, and
in communities with proposed schemes not yet constructed. The discussion has also shown
that values, experiences, social relationships and environmental perceptions surrounding
wind power proposals will vary depending on the individual, the community and the wider
context. Most importantly, perceptions are framed and moulded within the planning process
through communication, consultation and relationships between the developer and the
community – issues this study will investigate in detail through a case study from Cornwall.
3. Methodology
This study uses a case study to investigate pre- and post-installation perceptions at
community level towards wind farm developments. The chosen community to be investigated
is near an established wind farm known as ‘Roskrow Barton’ situated in Western Cornwall
2.5 km west of the town of Penryn and 5 km from Falmouth and the coast (Figure 2).
Applicants for the wind farm were the owners of a local farm (Roskrow Barton Farm) with
two Vestas V52 wind turbines with 26 m long blades and an overall height of 70 m. Total
generating capacity is 1.7 MW, and in 2014 the turbines collectively provided 5000 MWh of
electricity, enough to power approximately 850 local homes.
7
Figure 2: Roskrow Barton Wind Farm and community study area
(3 km radius around wind farm) (Source: authors)
There were several reasons for selecting this case study community. The turbines were
highly unique to Western Cornwall at the time of proposal (2002) with regard to planned
height and scale of the proposal, meaning that impact on the landscape was expected to be an
emotive issue. The result was local and national controversy, with the wind farm planning
proposals prolonged subject to amendments, and eliciting largely negative responses from the
local community. There were two attempts to gain planning permission (2002 and 2003) for
the development and both were refused at planning committee due to perceived visual and
landscape impacts. The second refusal was subsequently overturned in 2004 by the Planning
Inspectorate on appeal and construction began in 2008. The turbines have been operational
for many years and are visually prominent from various vantage points. This protracted
development process has made this an ideal case study to investigate pre- and postinstallation perceptions as it allowed for assessment of long-term attitude changes. Despite
these specific characteristics of the Roskrow Barton development, the wind farm nonetheless
8
shares many elements with other onshore wind farms in the UK, in particular with regard to
its rural location, its relative distance to settlements, and its overall visual impact. As a result,
findings from this case study will be generalizable beyond the Roskrow Barton community,
and will address general issues, patterns and processes also evident in other UK onshore wind
farm developments.
To define the ‘community’ to be investigated, an area within a 3 km radius was
demarcated around Roskrow Barton (see Figure 2). This methodology is based on similar
case studies such as Graham et al. (2009) who used a 15 km radius of the ‘local area’ in a
New Zealand based study, and Warren et al. (2005) who used a 10 km radius in their study.
Although there is some argument that ‘communities’ are not always ‘localised’ in proximity
to turbines, it was reasonable to assume that those stakeholders sited closest to the turbines
would suffer most impact and that local people would be most exposed to the turbines
(Graham et al., 2009).
A multi-method approach was adopted that used both quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative records on power generation, installed capacity and future plans for windpower
generation were obtained to provide background context and highlight general trends,
followed by qualitative in-depth interviews in the case study. The use of a questionnaire was
rejected to address Aitken’s (2010) criticism of the ‘tick box’ method of gauging wind power
opinions, and to address Bell et al.’s (2005) suggestion that questionnaires often prevent
respondents from fully explaining why they may support wind power. Semi-structured
interviews were, therefore, used to gain information on individual opinions, experiences and
perceptions (n= 58 key stakeholders). Of these, six individuals were in the original Roskrow
Barton turbine planning application file including one local authority planning officer, a
policy officer, a member of The Ramblers Association, two wind power operators and one
local parish councillor. The remaining 52 interviewees were selected randomly within the 3
km radius area around the wind farm shown in Figure 2. An even spread of respondents
ensured as wide a cross-section of perceptions from a range of locations (see also Warren et
al., 2005). Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face, lasted 30-45 minutes, and
were recorded (subject to consent). Questions were based on core themes about pre- and postinstallation perceptions, but, as each participant had different life histories and interests in the
wind turbine proposal, additional questions were asked to explore respondent-specific issues
(see also Bristow et al., 2012). Interview questions were designed to gauge whether residents
lived in the area at the time of the wind turbine installation, and their general views towards
the development at various times (Table 1).
9
Table 1: Research strategy for interviewing residents within the defined community
(Source: authors)
Data from interviews was complemented by secondary sources. In particular, Cornwall
Council granted permission to use their planning database (IDOX) to retrieve details of wind
power planning consents/refusals issued with a focus on Roskrow Barton wind farm. This
enabled detailed assessment of comments made by community members living near the wind
farm over several years with regard to attitudes and reasons for support/rejection of the
planned development, thereby providing important supplementary information to the
interviews. In addition, planning officer reports, appeal decisions, and other case
documentation on Roskrow Barton wind farm were obtained from planning records.
10
4. Pre- and post-installation perceptions of Roskrow Barton wind farm
Obtaining planning consent for Roskrow Barton wind farm was a complex process and lasted
from 2002 with application to the planning authority to build two 81 metre high wind
turbines. The plans were revised to alleviate concerns, including reduction in turbine height
to 70 metres and relocation of a proposed access track. While the planning officer
recommended approval of the revisions, this was overturned at Planning Committee and the
proposals were refused in 2002. As the result of the committee meeting was close, the
applicant resubmitted a new (identical) proposal, but was refused again in 2003 based on
visual impact on the countryside. The applicants subsequently appealed against the planning
refusal to the Planning Inspectorate, and in 2004 they won1. Roskrow Barton wind farm was
constructed and became operational in 20082.
In order to gauge perceptions of local residents pre- and post-installation, a first step
involved a subjective assessment of the geographical setting of the site and its visibility
within a 3 km radius area. The wind farm is situated in an elevated location on agricultural
fields, outside any special protected landscape. The surrounding area comprises a mix of
scattered farms, dwellings, several quarries, and nearby villages (see Figure 2 above). A
public footpath runs between the two turbines, making the turbines highly visible. From the
A394 to the south the structures are often fully visible, and in the wider landscape the
turbines form a prominent landscape feature that is recognisable from many coastal and
inland locations (e.g. from the city of Truro 17 km north). As a result, the turbines are well
known, with a member of The Ramblers Association stating that “you can see the turbines
from all over the place, for miles, it wasn’t a distinctive hilltop before, but since the turbines
are there it has become one”.
Due to its potential impact on the landscape, local opposition, and negative media reports,
the Roskrow Barton planning proposals attracted strong local and regional opposition from
various stakeholders. Those interested in the planning outcomes were individuals from the
local and wider community, such as home owners, farmers and businesses, but also local and
national organisations. Table 2 shows community concerns raised towards the Roskrow
1
This protracted process is not uncommon as since 2007 50% of refused planning committee wind projects in
the UK have been approved at appeal (DECC, 2013).
2
Following the Roskrow Barton approval, other planning applications have been granted in the region. For
example, permission was given upon appeal in 2011 for a single 225 KW wind turbine (height 55m) at a site to
the west (Polkanuggo Farm). However, at the time of writing, this proposal has not yet been built and has been
extremely controversial with significant local objection.
11
Barton proposals in 2002. 18 people out of the 52 Roskrow Barton respondents (36%)
objected to the proposals, citing environmental issues, visual and landscape impacts, noise,
equestrian impacts, wildlife concerns and traffic impacts (new access road; construction
traffic).
Table 2: Examples of objections to Roskrow Barton wind farm received from community members in 2002
(Source: authors, after Roskrow Barton planning officer report)
The main objectors were largely affluent and fit educational/socio-economic profiles said
to have leverage to block wind power developments (Toke, 2005). An elderly village resident,
for example, argued that “I didn’t want the turbines, so I wrote in with every objection I
could think of” – suggesting a will to object the proposals at whatever cost. One female
objector put up critical placards on the main road with the aim of making others aware of the
proposals. This same objector also used the local paper and enlisted help of the Country
Guardian (an NGO) to rally support against the wind farm. This affected wider perceptions in
the local community, with a resident living in a nearby village recalling that “there were
placards put up all down the main road, that’s why I knew about it”. A wife of a farmer living
to the west of the turbines remembers going to the Council Offices with a group during the
pre-installation phase. Once they had read all information submitted with the application,
they “made up leaflets and distributed them around the neighbourhood to tell people in case
they didn’t know” – again suggesting that several residents attempted to persuade others to
oppose the wind farm. Another elderly business woman recalled that a mother of a family
12
close to the turbines was the main organiser of opposition: “she was the centrepiece for all of
us, she organised everything and got us all together ... we all followed her lead”. The husband
of the main objector similarly stated that his wife “was always out canvassing, it was inbuilt ...
she was absolutely against the turbines. She even contacted scientists from Southampton
University and got them on board ... She was really paranoid about the turbines”. A local
resident involved in the debate summarised the general local view pre-installation: “there
wasn’t anyone around here that wanted the turbines, apart from the landowners [Roskrow
Barton Farm]”. This supports Toke’s (2005) findings that influential opposition groups are
often formed from those living in close proximity to turbines, and several studies have
highlighted wind power developments where objectors have successfully utilised the media
to influence others and where, in turn, vocal local opposition has influenced planning
outcomes (e.g. Aitken et al., 2008).
The two large tubines on Roskrow Barton farm were finally installed in 2008, six years
after the original proposals. At the time of this study (2013), five years had elapsed which
gave local residents sufficient time to reflect upon the impact of the turbines. The findings not
only suggest a change in perceptions of the community towards more positive perceptions of
the turbines (partly confirming previous studies; see below), but also complex non-linear
changes in perceptions which may suggest a need to re-think existing models of change to
community perception pre-and post-installation.
Figure 3 highlights the complexity of views post-installation. Out of 52 respondents,
about a third (32%) continue to have negative perceptions, with 14 people (26%) still
‘disliking’ the turbines and 3 respondents (6%) merely ‘tolerating’ them. The bulk of
respondents (n=28; 54%) now have ‘neutral’ attitudes (turbines ‘didn’t bother them’ or ‘don’t
affect them’), while the remainder (7; 14%) either ‘like’ them (3 respondents) or are ‘very
positive’ towards them (4). The husband of the main objector pre-installation, for example,
argued that “I think they are awesome, they add a feature to my home, they look magnificent”,
suggesting a complete change in attitudes post-installation. On the other hand, a farmer close
to the turbines argued that “you’ve got an unknown when it’s going up, you think ‘oh God if
there’s two there now I suppose there will be 10 next year’! You are always concerned you
might get more, so you think God how do I even get on top of this situation ... So you do start
to object and complain about the situation ... because it’s an unknown”.
13
Figure 3: Post-installation community perceptions towards Roskrow Barton Wind Farm 2013 (Source: authors’
survey)
Out of 52 residents 9 had moved to the area after planning permission was granted, 25
already lived in the area and made no comment on the proposals, while 18 long-term
residents objected. Figure 4 shows a more detailed analysis of pre- and post-installation
perceptions, in particular whether and how attitudes of those who made objections during the
proposal stage (n=18) (Figure 4a) changed their views post-installation (Figure 4b). As
Figure 4b shows, 50% of the original 18 objectors changed their opinion and either ‘tolerate’,
are ‘in favour’, or ‘strongly for’ the turbines, suggesting a substantial change in attitudes
post-installation. Those remaining who still dislike the turbines (n=9) were negative towards
wind power as a whole and had a lack of confidence in the technology.
Figure 4: Change of community perceptions of Roskrow Barton Wind Farm 2002-2013
(a = pre-turbine opinion 2002; b= current opinion 2013) (Source: authors)
14
Attitude changes of the ‘silent majority’ of 25 respondents who had no comments on the
original proposals are more difficult to gauge. Overall, there was no vocal community
support for the Roskrow Barton proposals at planning application stage, suggesting relatively
negative perceptions pre-installation. Reasons for the 25 respondents for not engaging in the
planning process included the view that the turbines would not affect the respondents (‘the
proposals didn’t affect us’, ‘it didn’t bother me’), a fatalistic perceptions that ‘there was no
point, it was going to happen anyway’, or that respondents ‘accepted it needed to happen’,
and apathy (‘I didn’t get involved or look at the plans’). In a similar study Bell et al. (2005)
referred to such respondents as the ‘silent majority’ who typically do not come forward to
comment on planning proposals. Indeed, Wolsink (2000) and Toke (2005) have criticised the
planning system for facilitating more criticism than support, whereby the opposing minority
often control developments while the majority do not have a strong a voice. However, a ‘lack
of voice’ or confidence to come forward may not be the only issue, as in the case of Roskrow
Barton there also appeared to be a lack of motivation to object or support the proposals – i.e.
those who were not affected were likely not to comment. Figure 5 shows the current opinions
of the 25 residents who made no comments in the pre-installation stage and suggests that the
majority today remain neutral towards the wind farm, although 20% still ‘dislike’ them. The
latter are those who fell into the ‘apathetic’ camp in 2002 who felt the proposals would go
ahead regardless of their intervention. Nonetheless, a change in attitudes may also be
perceptible among 12% who are now ‘in favour’/‘strongly in favour’ of the wind farm –
again emphasising complex non-linear changes in attitudes.
Figure 5: Community opinion towards Roskrow Barton Wind Farm 2013 (views received from 25 residents
who did not engage in the initial planning process) (Source: authors’ survey)
15
The study further revealed interesting patterns with regard to changes in perceptions over
time related to specific issues of wind farm development such as environmental impacts, and
socio-economic and psycho-social effects. Changing environmental perceptions are
particularly instructive in this respect, and visual considerations were particularly important
pre- and post-installation as visual impact is allegedly the most emotive issue in the wind
power debate and strongest influence on attitudes (Aitken et al., 2008; Jessup, 2010). The
perception of landscape change was, therefore, a key focus in interviews with residents. 14
respondents recalled originally objecting to the proposals over visual impact, but the majority
of the 52 respondents interviewed said they were ‘used to seeing them’. A wind power
operator involved with Roskrow argued that “people are worried about the change in the
landscape and the fact it might affect them ... Yes, they are a change in the landscape, but you
can become accustomed to them”. Only 6 respondents still argued that visual impact was ‘a
concern’, with one resident suggesting that “no-one in their right mind would consider them
aesthetically beautiful”, but these respondents were also generally unsupportive of wind
power as a concept and lived in areas where both turbines are highly noticeable. Interestingly,
respondents residing closer to the turbines who only see parts of the turbines often had
positive views about visual impact. This suggests that visual impact is not necessarily an
issue for those living closest to the structures. Overall, 65% thought the turbines were
pleasant to look at, supporting Eltham et al.’s (2008) study that reported positive views
towards the visual attractiveness of post-installation wind power projects. Comments from
those residing in Roskrow Barton included “they have a certain beauty” and “I think they are
artistic in their own right”. Nonetheless, 35% felt they were out of place and affected their
reasons for residing in the countryside linked to notions of ‘rural idyll’. A family who moved
to the area just before the turbines were erected argued that “we moved here because it was
out the way, but since then we’ve had the recycling centre, the turbines and the university
being extended. It’s not the countryside anymore!”. Similarly, an elderly resident argued that
“we are country lovers and we don’t like things like windmills sticking up, they don’t fit in”,
while a couple close to the turbines complained that “there are times when it would be
idyllically quiet if you didn’t have the turbine whoosh going on all the time”.
Similarly complex answers could be found with regard to how the wind farm has affected
sense of place. A young father who moved to the area post-installation conceded that “what is
part of the countryside is all evolving, you just have to make it part of the countryside, you
can’t say wind turbines are just for cities, there are a lot more ugly buildings around Cornwall
that are just as bad”. This lends support to the notion that romantic notions of the countryside
16
are changing and that wind turbines may become more acceptable visual additions. Yet, as
Devine-Wright (2009) argued, the issue may not be the style and appearance of the turbines
but the threat to the connection of the individual with ‘place’ or their emotional connection
with ‘home’. This ‘out-of-place’ argument was a significant influence with regard to preinstallation objections, but evidence suggests that attitudes have changed post-installation.
Respondents said that when they think about the turbines now they ‘like them! You can’t take
them away, they are our turbines [emphasis added]’. This change in opinion is echoed by
several living in proximity to the wind farm, suggesting that the sense of place attachment has
now been transferred to these structures through their landmark representation as part of
‘home’ – as Eltham et al. (2008) suggested, a possible positive impact that wind farms appear
to have on some residents.
Nonetheless, although many residents had become used to the visual presence of the
turbines, they frequently mentioned the noise they created as negative. Noise was particularly
problematic when the wind blows from the east, and all residents acknowledged noise was an
issue at certain times. 70% of respondents said they had become used to it, while 30% found
it kept them awake at night or that it was ‘irritating’. One couple living on a farm near the
turbines said that “we didn’t object to [the wind farm], but the noise is actually worse than we
thought”. These results broadly mirror those of Warren et al. (2005) who found that 75% of
people residing close to wind farms did not object to hearing the noise they created, while 25%
perceived the noise as negative, although other studies have found that the extent of
perceived noise depends on individuals and other contextual factors such as siting and
proximity to roads (e.g. Krohn and Damborg, 1999). In Roskrow Barton, for example, one
resident living near the A39 did not find the noise intrusive as “I don’t know they are there ...
because of the road noise”.
Overall, the 3 km radius study site could be divided into two zones, with people residing
in the zone closest to the turbines mentioning noise frequently (100%), whereas those in the
outer zone were less concerned (16%). Nonetheless, noise could also be an issue for those
residing further from the turbines, and a local parish councillor argued that “sometimes you
can’t hear [them] close by, but at other times you hear [them] 300 metres away”. This is the
main reason why the community would not accept future turbine proposals in their area. A
mother of two living to the north-east of the site, for example, argued that “there is already
noise [from Roskrow Barton], and I would be fearful about more because of it getting worse”.
Another resident living close to the turbines suggested that “there are only two, but if there
were more it would be unbearable”. Although Pedersen and Persson Waye (2004) and
17
Wolsink (2007) suggested that turbine noise was only a secondary factor (visual impact often
being a stronger influence), for the Roskrow Barton community noise has remained a primary
concern post-installation. However, no official complaints have been made to the council
regarding noise nuisance, and a respondent living close to the turbines suggested that one
reason for this may be linked to the fact that “there are a few people around here who go very
odd when you start talking about noise. They don’t want to talk about it, the reason being
completely financial: if you sell your property without declaring a noise nuisance they can’t
come back to you, so people don’t complain”.
Results were equally complex with regard to socio-economic perceptions. Wolsink (2000)
hypothesised that the protection of an individual’s own property values is a key reason for
objecting to wind power proposals, and property devaluation emerged as a major reason for
community objections to the wind turbines. A young mother argued that “I think people
thought it was going to limit the value of their homes so they objected, but actually the value
of our house has gone right up”. Of those interviewed seven had moved to the area after the
turbines were operational and two had moved in just before. All these residents were positive
towards the turbines with the exception of one living on the periphery of the community, who
said “I wouldn’t have lived any closer”. It is important to note that these people actively
chose to live in this location rather than having the turbines ‘imposed’ on them. However, a
property developer who lived close to the turbines since before they were constructed
suggested that “the financial side was my main concern, but it hasn’t affected the price”.
Overall, resident perceptions suggest that the threat of the wind farm reducing the value of
houses was more concerning than reality turned out to be.
One key economic issue was linked to community financial benefits from the wind farm
although it was impossible to chart how attitudes changed over time due to lack of preinstallation information from respondents (secondary sources provided no data on this).
Nonetheless, in contrast to many other wind power perception studies (e.g. Warren et al.,
2005; Cowell, 2010), 99% of residents felt the wind farm had posed no benefit to the local
community in any form, economic or otherwise as there was no direct monetary benefit to the
community3. Respondents were asked whether the addition of monetary benefit, either via
community funds/reduction in their fuel bill, would make a difference to their opinion. An
elderly lady living in close proximity said: “yes I suppose it would, it would depend on what
3
Lack of financial benefits to communities from early wind farm projects (i.e. 1990s to early 2000s) was
common in developments such as Roskrow Barton. Since then, community remuneration has increased with
commonly £5000/MW and support for local project initiatives offered to communities (see Table 3 below).
18
they offered really, but I think I’d still have concerns depending on what was proposed and
where it was going”. A young mother living to the west of the turbines similarly argued that
“it definitely would sell it to me more if I got a reduction in fuel prices and it went back to the
community”. In total, 35% of Individuals felt that the monetary value would never offset the
costs, while 65% said some form of community benefit would influence their perceptions and
that cheaper electricity should be supplied to those living closest to the turbines.
Nonetheless, there was also cynicism about the concept of ‘community funds’. A
businessman living to the east of the wind farm argued that “I’m a bit sceptical about
community benefits, I think it goes back to the landowners and we would never see any of it”.
The inference is that individuals need to physically ‘see’ and benefit directly from a project to
appreciate it. However, since the Roskrow Barton proposals were granted (2003) there has
been a more defined system for community benefits in terms of financial payments, although
there is as yet no standardised approach to type/extent of community benefits or fund
management processes in the UK (DECC, 2013).
Residents were also asked if they would ever support a new wind turbine development in
their area, and typical responses included “I don’t think we need any more”, “there are
enough at the site”, and “I would object to more”. Similarly, a resident who moved to the area
just before the turbines were built argued that “I don’t mind two [turbines], they are there and
we put up with them, but I wouldn’t want any more”. Figure 6 shows that of 52 respondents
only 9 (18%) would support other wind power proposals (6 said it would depend on
proximity). A businessman living on the periphery of the community argued that “it’s always
the same scenario, people are in favour of [wind farms] but not on their doorsteps, I would
probably sit on the fence again to a new project, but if it was proposed right in front of my
house I wouldn’t want to look at that”.
19
Figure 6: Roskrow Barton community responses to potential future projects in their area
(Source: Author’s Survey)
In Cornwall in 2013 there were only 8 approved wind power schemes that offered
community benefits. The benefits ranged from £3,000-10,000/MW/year. Table 3 shows
different benefits linked to levels of objection/support, and suggests that high community
benefits are not always associated with general support. For example, a development in St
Breock, intended to replace 11 wind turbines with 5 larger and more powerful alternatives,
only received 7 letters of objection and 95 letters of support. Benefit offered was 4,000
MW/yr of the lifetime of the wind farm, meaning a potential £50,000/annum based on an
installed capacity of 12.5 MW, with funds distributed to parishes within 5 km of the site.
Unsurprisingly, involved parishes supported the scheme, and a reduction in number of
turbines was viewed as less environmental impact, so the proposals were highly supported.
Judging by the extent of such benefits, the Roskrow Barton proposals could have provided
substantial funding to the community, given that they have 1.7 MW capacity.
20
Table 3: Community benefit from wind farms in Cornwall and public support/objection 2013 (approved wind
turbine applications) (Source: Cornwall Councils IDOX planning system)
Changes in perceptions towards the wind farm in Roskrow Barton post-installation were,
thus, closely related to the development of wind power across Cornwall as whole. Frequent
comments were that “the Government wants to fill up the south west with turbines” or that
“we already have enough turbines in Cornwall, yet they keep approving more”. An original
objector to the Roskrow turbines who went on to subsequently support them suggested that
“we’ve got hundreds of turbines now and you can’t fight it, the powers out there are
ridiculous, you’ve either got to get on with it or put up with it”. Indeed, in 2002 (Roskrow
Barton proposal announced) wind power was a fairly new concept, but by 2013 there
were >170 operational wind power proposals in Cornwall, with the number of approved
proposals quadrupling between 2009-2013. A planning officer involved with the Roskrow
Barton application argued that, as a result, there has been an evolution of objections: “people
objected back then [in 2002], it was about things like television signal and road works, but
things change and nowadays it is about cumulative impact and the number of turbines”. A
study by Graham et al. (2009) similarly showed that cumulative effects of wind power
21
projects in proximity to others could be a significant factor, supporting the notion that
opinions towards wind power are transitory and adaptable (Aitken, 2010).
5. Discussion and conclusions: implications for conceptualisations of pre- and postinstallation perceptions to wind farms
This study has analysed community perceptions towards wind power using a case study of an
operational wind farm (Roskrow Barton, Cornwall). In order to test current debates about
pre- and post-acceptance opinions of affected stakeholders (Gipe, 1995; Krohn and Damborg,
1999; Devine-Wright, 2005), community members and affected stakeholders were
interviewed to assess perceptions towards the development before and after the wind farm
was operational. Community perceptions were influenced by a range of environmental, socioeconomic and socio-political variables, but community opinion also changes considerably
over time. In particular, although negative perceptions can be found both pre- and postinstallation, collectively the community have become used to the turbines and that attitudes
have generally become more favourable. Existing wind farm studies particularly highlight
that visual impact is the most important influence on perceptions (Wolsink, 2007), but
residents interviewed in this study argued that they are now ‘used’ to seeing the turbines. The
outcomes, therefore, add to existing ‘before and after wind turbine’ studies (e.g. Gipe, 1995;
Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Devine-Wright, 2005) which show that fears of living near a
wind farm at least partly dispel over time. Additionally, the outcomes support the findings of
Warren et al. (2005) that although those residing near the wind farm could hear them the
majority do not object to the noise.
As a result, the community appears to be more positive towards the wind farm postinstallation compared to opinions during the pre-installation phase. This supports Aitken’s
(2010: 1835) suggestion that a range of “flexible, transitory and adaptable” opinions surround
pre- and post-installation wind turbines, with attitudes varying over time depending on
individual and context. This is also supported by other studies investigating change in
perceptions towards wind power proposals over time. For example, Warren et al. (2005)
found that people living near to existing wind turbines were more supportive of them postinstallation, while Van der Horst (2007) suggested that positive views towards wind turbines
are high for those more familiar with turbines on a daily basis. Experience with wind farms
does, therefore, appear to increase positive views through familiarity and exposure over time.
22
The results nonetheless differ in subtle ways from those of Gipe (1995), Krohn and
Damborg (1999) and Devine-Wright (2005) who suggested a generalised U-shaped
development of attitudes. In particular, although still following a general U-shaped curve, the
results from this study suggest more complex, multi-layered and nuanced community
responses to wind farms, with slightly different ‘acceptance curves’ for individual areas of
concern including visual intrusion (on the whole positive acceptance by community postinstallation [U-shaped]), noise (acceptance after concerns during installation but with some
remaining concerns [U-shape flattened to the right]), property price impacts (realisation postinstallation that property prices have not been greatly affected [U-shaped]), community
economic benefits (a mixed picture due to lack of direct remuneration [U-shape flattened to
the right]), and environmental impacts ([U-shaped with slight flattening to the right].
This suggests that instead of a highly positive outlook towards wind energy both at the
beginning and end of the development process, this study has shown a positive outlook at the
beginning (towards wind power in general), concern during the planning process (i.e. no or
very little support for the wind farm proposal), and a medium (‘tolerated’ or ‘lived with’)
outlook five years later as a result of multi-layered and different acceptance curves related to
individual areas of concern. Figure 7 shows a modified version of the U-curve of wind farm
acceptance, and suggests instead a more ‘shallow/flattened’ change in attitudes postinstallation. This modified curve still supports the hypothesis that the ‘fear’ of living near a
wind farm decreases over time (Warren et al., 2005), but it cannot support the notion that the
community on the whole became ‘highly positive’ towards the turbines post-installation. This
is in line with Wolsink’s (2007) cautionary note that while positive attitudes increase postconstruction, often attitudes do not return to the same/or higher level present pre-installation,
i.e. attitude enhancement is not guaranteed nor does it necessarily improve exponentially over
time. This study, therefore, strongly supports Devine-Wright’s (2005: 131) critique of
unilinear attitude change models, and that there is not “a simple, linear relationship between
experience and perception because of the numerous other influences that shape people’s
judgements and opinions”.
23
Figure 7: Comparison of U-curve shaped acceptance models (Gipe, 1995; Krohn and Damborg, 1999; DevineWright, 2005) with results from the Roskrow Barton study 2013 (Source: authors)
The results from this study suggest that further follow-up research is needed about postinstallation community perceptions, especially with regard to perceptions related to multilayered and complex individual areas of concern including noise, visual impacts,
environmental effects, etc. Indeed, if a suite of ‘before and after’ wind turbine studies are
gathered and – most importantly – made publicly available, they may help to show that
original concerns over wind farm developments are not as extensive as originally imagined.
This study, therefore, echoes the call by Knopper and Ollsen (2011) for more collaboration
with communities over socio-economic, health and environmental pre- and post-construction
issues. Such improved collaboration would also foster trust between developers and
communities, rather than residents feeling as though wind farm developments are ‘imposed’
on them. Finally, more research is needed on the issue of community financial benefits from
wind farm developments. This study has highlighted varied and inconsistent provision for
counties such as Cornwall, with no clear indication that availability of community funds will
lead to more acceptability, and in particular where communities do receive benefits (direct or
indirect) the distribution needs to be transparent and clear for residents.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the respondents who took part in this study for their time and
interest in the project. Special thanks must go to Ian Bailey, Plymouth University, for very
helpful critical comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, and to Tim Absalom for the
24
drawing of the figures and tables. The authors also wish to acknowledge very useful and
constructive comments provided by the anonymous referees.
REFERENCES
Aitken, M., McDonald, S. and P. Strachan 2008: Locating ‘power’ in wind power planning
processes: the (not so) influential role of local objectors. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 51(6): 777-799.
Aitken, M. 2010: Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: a critique
of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 38: 1834-1841.
Bailey, I., West, J. and I. Whitehead 2011: Out of sight but not out of mind? Public
perceptions of wave energy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 13(2):
139-157.
Bell, D., Gray, T. and C. Haggett 2005: The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions:
explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 14(4): 460-477.
Bristow, G., Cowell, R and M. Munday 2012: Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion of
‘community’ in community benefit provisions from wind farms. Geoforum 43: 11081120.
Cowell, R. 2010: Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning: the construction of
‘acceptable locations’ in Wales. Land Use Policy 27: 222-232.
DECC [Department of Environment and Climate Change] 2012: Public attitudes trackerwave 2 summary of key findings. http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/6410decc-public-att-tracksurv-wave2-summary.pdf (Accessed 08 November 2013).
DECC [Department of Energy and Climate Change] 2013: Onshore wind: part of the UK’s
energy mix. https://www.gov.uk/onshore-windpart-of-the-uks-energy-mix (Accessed
01 February 2014).
Devine-Wright P. 2005: Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for
understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8: 125-139.
Devine-Wright, P. 2009: Rethinking NIMBYism. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology 19: 425-442
Ellis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P., Szarka, J., Hadwin, R., Miner, P., Wolsink, M.
and A. Nadai 2009: Wind Power: is there a ‘planning problem’? Planning Theory and
Practice 10(4): 521-547.
Eltham, D., Harrison, G and S. Allen 2008: Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish
wind farm: implications for planning Energy Policy 36: 23-33.
EWEA [European Wind Energy Association] 2009: Chapter 6: Social acceptance of wind
energy
and
wind
farms
http://www.wind-energy-thefacts.org.en.environment/chapter-6-socialacceptance-of-wind-energy-and-windfarms/ (Accessed 21 August 2013).
Gipe, P. 1995: Wind energy comes of age. Chichester: Wiley.
Graham, J. B., Stephenson, J. R. and I.J. Smith 2009: Public perceptions of wind energy
developments: case studies from New Zealand. Energy Policy 37: 3348-3357.
Horn, J. W., Arnett, E.B. and T.H. Kunz 2008: Behavioral responses of bats to operating
wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 123-132.
Jessup, B. 2010: Plural and hybrid environmental values: a discourse analysis of the wind
energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environmental Politics 19(1):
21-44.
25
Jones, C and J. Eiser 2009: Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind
development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 37: 4604-4614.
Knopper, L. D. and C.A. Ollson 2011: Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the
literature. Environmental Health 10: 78-88.
Krohn, S. and S. Damborg 1999: On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy
16(1): 954-960.
Loring, J. 2006: Wind energy planning in Europe, Wales and Denmark: factors influencing
project success. Energy Policy 35: 2648-2660.
Munday, M., Bristow, G. and R. Cowell 2011: Wind farms in rural areas: how far do
community benefits from wind farms represent a local economic development
opportunity? Journal of Rural Studies 27: 1-12.
Pedersen, E. and K. Persson Waye 2004: Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise:
a dose-response relationship. Journal of Acoustic Society America 116(6): 3460-3470.
Swofford, J. and M. Slattery 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: 2508-2519.
Toke, D. 2005: Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in
England and Wales. Energy Policy 33: 1527-1539.
Van der Horst, D. 2007: NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics
of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35(5):
2705-2714.
Warren, C., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. and R. Birnie 2005: ‘Green on green’: public
perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 48: 853-75.
Wolsink, M. 2000: Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited
significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21: 49-64.
Wolsink, M. 2007: Planning for renewable energy schemes: deliberative and fair decision
making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation.
Energy Policy 35: 2692-2704.
26