ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1988;8:323-334 323

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF A LARGE

WIND TURBINE

MAARTEN WOLSINK

Social impact assessment (SIA) techniques have often been applied to the large-
scale options traditionally characterizing the energy sector. The physical planning
of nuclear power, off-shore oil and gas exploration, and the use of coal have all
been investigated. In searching for alternatives to these large-scale energy op-
tions, general development programs have been established to stimulate such
new energy sources as solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind power. The general
idea about these sources is that their application will decrease the use of fossil
fuels, thereby reducing the overall burden on the environment.
While this notion about alternative energy sources is generally a valid one,
individual alternative energy applications nonetheless generate environmental
impacts. An obvious example of both physical and social impact is the flooding
of a valley after the building of a dam, with the associated impacts to cultivated
land and homes. Other renewable energy technologies cause other environmental
and social impact problems, especially when introduced on a large scale.
This article presents the results of a study of the social impacts resulting from
the installation of a large wind turbine. The study was performed under the
auspices of the Dutch Ministry of the Environment, which subsidized the research
(Wolsink 1987b). The objective was to measure the impact of this project on
public perceptions of wind-generated electricity. The study sought to establish
changes in perception caused by the introduction of a large wind turbine into
local living environs.
Within the SIA model (Burdge 1987), this was an example of a combined
comparative and control study. Research activities mainly concentrated on the
profiling and projection steps in the SIA process (Wolf 1983). It was a rather
rare before/after study. "Few such studies are funded even though the entire SIA

© 1988 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.

655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 0195-9255/88/$3.50
324 MAARTEN WOLSINK

community knows how important they are" (Finsterbush 1985). The knowledge
gained may be applied in the assessment step: predicting future impact and
avoiding physical circumstances which result in negative social impact.

Experimental Background
The Dutch environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure is based on general
guidelines that are accompanied by an extensive checklist of all conceivable
kinds of effects (MER 1981). From this list, all effects that might be linked to
large wind power machines were selected. These included safety issues, elec-
tromagnetic interference, visual impacts, noise impacts, wildlife collisions (Man-
ning 1983), and disturbance caused by moving shadows (Verkuijlen and Westra
1985). The SIA may be formulated in both individual and communal terms
(Meissen and Cipriani 1984), with the latter particularly important in the case
of decentralized applications of wind power. In decentralized utilization the wind
turbines are a part of the community, and the energy is consumed locally; the
turbine is sited within the same physical structure as the users of it (Verkuijlen
et al. 1987). SIAs of the decentralized utilization of wind power have included
changes in individual patterns of electricity use and the role of the community
in the exploitation and control of the wind turbines (Wolsink 1987a).
Because this study concentrated on a large wind turbine with a centralized
application, and because communal impact stems from individual responses, our
first objective was to study individual perceptions of wind power. Apart from
environmental impact, the Dutch EIA checklist contains some general perceptions
about the environment (see Table 1). The experimental questionnaire was de-
veloped from this checklist, to which were added items relative to impacts on
electricity production and price.

Experimental Design
In November 1985, the first large wind turbine, the 1-MW NEWECS-45, was
started up in the vicinity of Medemblik (M, Figure 1). The individuals comprising
the experimental study group were living around this turbine. Two control groups
were chosen: a national representative sample and a sample drawn from the
populations living around four locations that had been selected for the first
national experimental wind farm. This wind farm was ultimately built elsewhere,
but the four areas were judged very suitable for wind power application in the
near future. This control group is designated P for "potential areas" (see Figure
1). The experimental design can be characterized as a combination of nonequi-
valent control group designs. Both M against P and M against the national sample
are pretest/posttest designs with an untreated control group (Cook and Campbell
1979).
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF A LARGE WIND TURBINE 325

TABLE 1. General Perceptional Impact

Effects on the visual perception of the environment
Effects on the auditory perception of the environment
Effects on the aesthetic perception of the environment
Effects on feelings of safety
Effects on the living and/or recreational environment
Changes in the perception of specific parts of the landscape
Changes in the perception of urban buildings and urban structures
Changes in village and town views

Source: MER 1981, p 91.

The experimental factor of group M was the NEWECS-45 wind turbine, a

machine with a hub height of 197 feet and a rotor diameter of 148 feet. Because
plans for this turbine already existed at the time of the pretest, this threat to
experimental validity was neutralized by the introduction of the P control group,
for which wind power plans existed as well.
The resulting model of the project can be diagramed as follows:

Location Group Plan Pretest "Treatment" Posttest

M NEWECS Yes May Yes June
1985 1986
P Potential areas Yes May No June
1985 1986
Scattered National sample No May No June
1985 1986

Measurements
Attitude measurement is usually aimed at the explanation of related behavior.
The ways attitudes have been measured have been influenced by the need to
reveal behavioral intentions. Fishbein has constructed a model (Ajzen and Fish-
bein 1980) in which behavioral intentions are explained by attitudes towards
behavior and subjective norms. In our study, the dependent variables were not
a specific type of behavior or behavioral intention, but rather the individual
attitudes towards collective behavior. The study uses Fishbein's method of at-
titude measurement in which attitudes are constructed out of beliefs and eval-
uations.
Applying this basic concept, the study collected information regarding beliefs
about results that would follow from the collective act of placing wind turbines
(attributions), and evaluations of these attributed results. We applied this dis-
tinction to the possible outcomes that were listed in the experimental question-
naire and that were neither evidently positive (for instance, "air pollution will
diminish"), nor negative ("noise interference"). The possible outcomes were
listed in the questionnaire and the respondents were asked to estimate the chance
326 MAARTENWOLSINK

NORTH SEA

).
/
/
(
I
(--°~ J

I
...-,
[--J J
c'~,
NETHERLANDS \N. /
i"../"

THE
/.~L-,.d~./
,L. WEST
L.)
GERMANY

~..~ "\. /

BELGIUM ~ .~.f"
f b

FIGURE 1. Locations of the study. M = Medemblik, location of the experimental

group; P = Four locations of potential areas

that the named result would follow from the large-scale application of wind
power in the near future. These beliefs were scored on a scale from 1 (very
slight chance) to 5 (very great chance). The evaluations varied from - 2 (very
negative) to + 2 (very positive). Then another set of either positive or negative
outcomes was presented and each respondent was asked to estimate the change
that would be caused by the siting of the 1-MW turbine in the respondent's
immediate environment. (A realistic composite picture of the turbine, with a
reference as to size, was simultaneously presented.) Attitudes were measured as
five-point-scale items by making a judgment on these statements about general
and specific wind power applications.
In addition, the following aspects were measured for each respondent: general
interest in energy-related issues and knowledge about wind power; general at-
titude to energy-related issues; and social, economic, and political background.
These variables were important as an inventory of background to attitudes con-
ceming wind power. The sociocultural and general attitudinal variables also
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF A LARGE WIND TURBINE 327

served to establish the differences between the groups. The reactor disaster at
Chernobyl posed an additional threat to experimental validity that had to be
neutralized. This event, 11/2 months before the posttest, caused some attitudinal
changes with a related effect on perceptions of wind power.

Results
A general result of the measurements concerning wind power was that the level
of correct information about wind power application was low in all groups. The
only significant differences between the three groups concerned items linked to
the plans for wind farms. As expected, respondents near these locations were
slightly better informed about them. General knowledge about the characteristics
of wind turbines was small in all groups, as was knowledge about the amount
of energy wind turbines yield. The yield was often underestimated, as previous
research has shown as well (Carlman 1982). With a lack of available information,
the influence of personal psychological factors on the attribution of results will
be considerable.
Apart from the existence of physical impact and the knowledge about it, people
show a tendency to link positive results to objects that are viewed positively.
This tendency affected the expectations about the possible wind power application
outcomes. The phenomenon of probability consistency, the tendency to link
assumptions about objects or events to a more or less logical pattern, also
appeared. In the analysis of both pretest and posttest data, similar logical patterns
could be traced.
The items in Table 2 are presented in clusters that were internally homogeneous
and could be distinguished in principal component analysis, l The conduct of the
clusters could easily be recognized, and six scales resulted for further analysis.
It was possible to establish the relative importance of the beliefs, for example,
about the results of wind energy use on a large scale. The strength of the
relationships between beliefs and attitudes, which were the essence of the research
model, are shown in Table 3. The wind power attitude appearing in Table 3
was the central attitude that could be distinguished. Three other attitudes existed,
but these were of secondary importance and were derived from the main attitude,
as an analysis of the pretest data has shown (Wolsink 1987b).
The structural analysis led to the following conclusions that were also sup-
ported by the posttest data.
• The one central attitude was the general attitude for or against wind power
application; the other attitudes were derivatives of it.
• The attitude was influenced by the following beliefs/evaluations (in de-
creasing importance): the evaluation of the visual impact on the landscape;
the evaluation of general environmental effects; the beliefs about interfer-
ences with nature and landscape; and the beliefs about general interferences.
• Neither "electricity price" nor "decentralization" was significantly related
328 MAARTENWOLSINK

T A B L E 2. Clusters of Beliefs (b) and Evaluations (e) About Wind Power Application
Type Fit
Possible Result (b/e) Scale (Eigenvalue)
Many turbines in landscape b/e Evaluation of
Many turbines near buildings b/e turbines in the .74
Many turbines in industrial zones b/e landscape
New power plants become superfluous b/e "]
Nuclear power becomes superfluous i/e l Environmental
.51
Oil and coal saving advantages
Air pollution will be diminished
Shadow and light interference b "~
Noise interference b
Interference of radio or television b
Interference .58
Interference with electricity supply b
Fluctuating electricity supply b
Accidents b
Interference with landscape b "]
Danger for birds b Nature/landscape .65
Interference with scenic areas b interference
Spoiling of village or town views b
Less influence of utilities b/e 1 Decentralization
More influence of communities b/e in electricity .48
More small installations b/e production
Cheap electricity for all b 1
Cheap electricity for windy areas b/e Electricity prices .53
Cheap electricity for connected households b/e

T A B L E 3. Relationship of Wind Power Attitude to Proposed Results of Large Scale

Application [Multiple R = .62; R squared = .39]
Standardized Significance
Regression (p < .01;
Scale Coefficient n = 521)
Evaluation of landscape .31 Yes
Environmental advantages .21 Yes
Nature/landscape interference - . 17 Yes
Interference - . 16 Yes
Decentralization in electricity production .09 No
Electricity prices .06 No
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF A LARGE WIND TURBINE 329

to attitude. At the same time, the scores on these two scales were not at all
consistent. 2
The following discussion, therefore, concentrates on the other four clusters listed
in Table 2 and on the general attitude towards the application of wind power.

The Shift of Attitudes

Pretest and posttest data were available for 333 respondents. Three kinds of
differences could be tested:
1. a similar change in all three groups (overall trend),
2. a relative change in one group (one-group trend), and
3. differences among groups.
These differences were tested by means of a multiple analysis of variance
with one covariate. The opinion on the application of nuclear power was intro-
duced as a covariate for two reasons: as a correction for group differences due
to the selection procedure, and as a control for the attitudinal impact of the
Chernobyl disaster.
Group differences existed because the samples were taken from socially dif-
ferent groups. The relation to wind power attitudes was computed for those
variables that showed significantly different scores. There were two character-
istics, age and educational level (the national sample was younger and better
educated), with significant differences, but these variables did not have a relevant
relation to attitude. Twoother interdependent variables exhibited a fair and almost
significant difference as well: political orientation and opinion on nuclear power.
Both were also related to age and education. The strongest correlation of all
these variables to wind power attitude revealed people's opinion of nuclear
energy. Introducing this as a covariate to a great extent controlled for the dif-
ferences in the other three variables. The changes in opinion about nuclear power
which resulted from the Chernobyl accident were considerable. This opinion,
moderately correlated to wind power attitude, had an overall impact on the results
of the experiment, as will be shown.
For the analysis, the factor scores of wind power attitude were computed for
pretest and posttest simultaneously and standardized (n = 666, mean = 0, vari-
ance = 1). The next step was an analysis of variance (the results of which are
presented in Figure 2). In the analysis both control groups were taken together,
as the empirical results did not show a significant difference between them
(p < .05).
The most striking result of the study is to be found in Figure 2. In spite o f
the already high level of acceptance of wind power, the attitude became even
more positive. As the attitudes in the control group appeared to be stable, the
change in the experimental group was considerable. This positive impact was
clearly validated by the answers of the respoffdents in the experimental group
330 MAARTEN WOLSINK

.2 0 TURBINE
.17

0 BOTHCONTROL
GROUPS

-.o2 O - -.03

-.1

-.2
-.15 Z
FIGURE 2. Changes in wind power attitudes. The change in the experimental group
(TURBINE) was significant. The differences between the control groups were not sig-
nificant. Standard units based on the pretest.

to the simple question as to whether or not the confrontation with the 1-MW
turbine turned out better than expected. Only three respondents called it a dis-
appointment, 46 percent stayed neutral, and 52 percent said the turbine turned
out better than expected.

Changes in Beliefs and Evaluations

From the knowledge about the strength of the correlations between wind power
attitude and the attribute scales, the positive shift in attitudes leads to expectations
about the changes in the four selected attribute scales. The most important factor,
the visual evaluation of turbines in the landscape, should have shown an im-
provement. In Figure 3A, we see that this has indeed happened. The research
model did not make any assumption about the causality between attributes and
attitude; the observed improvement in attitude may have been caused by an
improvement in the visual evaluation of wind turbines, but it may have been the
other way round as well.
The latter can be illustrated by the changes in the environmental advantages
scale (Figure 3B). This scale showed a slight improvement in the control groups.
This was caused entirely by a change in the evaluation of the contribution of
wind power to the redundancy of nuclear power, an impact of Chernobyl and
certainly not caused by a more positive wind power attitude, as this had not
changed at all in the control groups. Nevertheless, the attribution of positive
environmental results to wind power in the experimental group increased sharply
 : EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE b : ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES

.4 .4 .41
,3
.32
.3
.2 .2
.14
.I
0
.05
.01

o ii
-.1
PRE POST PRE POST

c : NATURE/LANDSCAPE INTERFERENCE BY A LARGE d : NATURE/LANDSCAPEINTERFERENCEBY LARGE-SCALE

TURBINE IN LIVING ENVIRONS WIND POWERAPPLICATION
.1 •l l
.070"
0 .04 -.o20 0-.o~
-.1 -.I[-.I0
i

-.3:

- . 2 3 ~ -.67

-!I
-.5

-.7

-.9
PRE POST PRE POST

e : INTERFERENCE BY A LARGE TURBINE IN f : INTERFERENCE BY LARGE-SCALE WIND POWER

LIVING ENVIRONS APPLICATION
.3

.19 ~ .14
.130 0 .13

- . n 6- A -.oa
- . 16 4 J r

-.3
-.3 - . 2 5 ~ -.48
~ ~ 5~

-.6
PRE POST
-.6 PRE POST

FIGURE 3. Changes in perceptions of attributed results of large-scale wind power

application and a large turbine in the living environs (standard units; significant effects).
• = Turbine; C) = Both Control Groups; [ ] = Potential Areas; A -- National Sample.
332 MAARTEN WOLSINK

compared with the control groups. As the respondents could hardly have traced
any of these very general and long-term results, this could only have been the
result of the improved attitude in the experimental group.
The direct impact of the placing of the large turbine could be expected to
appear in the interference scales. These kinds of outcomes could have been
actually experienced. This is of particular importance because, in the evaluation,
disadvantages have a larger impact than advantages (Kahneman and Tverski
1979). Figure 3 C through F show the results for the general large-scale appli-
cation and for the placing of a 1-MW turbine in the living environment. On
these scales we see the sharpest decline in the experimental group, in particular
with respect to the proposed outcomes of the 1-MW turbine. In the personal
interference scales, the expectations about light and shadow interference and
noise interference showed the largest decrease of all. This result corresponds
with other research concerning existing wind turbines (Wolsink 1987a). But all
other expectations about the extent of personal interferences decreased as well,
except that of receiving radio and television signals. The obvious reason for this
was that some electromagnetic interference did occur (Overbeek 1987). Apart
from the impact of the turbine, some differences already existed among the
groups in the pretest. There was no explanation for this other than different
informational processes present within the groups at that time. The expectations
in both control groups remained stable, so the impact of the 1-MW turbine, as
expressed in the scores of the experimental group, was unquestionable.
The shift in the expectations regarding interference with nature and landscape
was smaller for the specific interferences caused by the 1-MW turbine than they
were for disruptions following a large-scale general application. At the same
time the experimental group already scored significantly lower in the pretest.
The difference was caused by the inclusion of attributes that were linked to the
location of the turbine. The expectations about disruptions to scenic areas were
low in the pretest and did not change because the precise location was known
by most respondents of the experimental group, and the area was not a scenic
one.

Conclusion
Attitudes regarding the application of wind power were generally very positive,
and they constitute a good foundation for the siting of turbines. The Dutch
government's fears regarding changes in attitude as a result of the siting of wind
turbines do not find support in the SIA presented here. Indeed, attitudes might
even become more positive in the case of a large wind turbine placed within the
living environment that does not induce immediate negative experiences.
This improvement in acceptance can be explained by the fact that the public
is not now well informed about the application of wind power and the operational
problems linked with it. The probability of negative impacts is easily overesti-
THE SOCIALIMPACTOF A LARGEWINDTURBINE 333

mated in the case of a carefully chosen location, as interferences can then be

avoided without great difficulty. The responses of even a turbine's most skeptical
neighbors can be positive, as the research as shown, if a facility is carefully
located.
Attitudes towards wind power depend more on the evaluation of the landscape
and on beliefs about negative impacts of turbines than on environmental advan-
tages o f the use of wind energy. Further, the latter are of a global nature, so
they can hardly be affected by a turbine in one's own environment. Aesthetics,
the degree of personal nuisance, and impacts to nature and landscape are the
determinants of attitudinal change. As we have seen, this may be positive, but
it could be negative as well. The positive attributes, such as decreasing the level
of air pollution and rendering nuclear power plants superfluous, will not be able
to maintain wind power's level of acceptance if aesthetically low-rated turbines
or inappropriate locations are chosen. The need is for careful locational planning
so that serious interference is avoided. It is careful planning that will help secure
public support both for the placement of wind turbines and for their subsequent
acceptance.

Notes
1. Principal component analysis with alternating least squares (PR1NCALS), for ordinal
data (Girl 1981). The presented Eigenvalues are based on a secondary analysis carried
out on each factor separately. No structural differences occurred among the three
groups or between the pretest and posttest.
2. The answers to the questions constituting the attitudinal and attribute scales were not
particularly consistent. The correlations between the corresponding scales in the pretest
and posttest were generally low, varying from .13 (decentralization scale) to .52
(attitude).

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Burdge, R. J. 1987. The social impact assessment model and the planning process.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 7(2): 141-150.
Carlman, I. 1982. Wind energy potential in Sweden: The importance of nontechnical
factors. 4th International Symposium on Wind-Energy Systems. Cranfield Bedford, UK:
BHRA Fluid Engineers.
Cook, Th.D. and Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation. Design & Analysis
Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Finsterbush, K. 1985. State of the art in social impact assessment. Environment and
Behavior 17(2):193-221.
Gift, A. 1981. Non-linear Multivariate Analysis. Leiden, The Netherlands: Department
of Data Theory, University of Leiden.
Kahneman D. and Tverski, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica 47:263-291.
334 MAARTENWOLSINK

Manning, P. T. 1983. The environmental impact of the use of large wind turbines. Wind
Engineering 7(1): 1-11.
Meissen, G. J. and Cipriani, J. A. 1984. Community psychology and social impact
assessment: An action model. American Journal of Community Psychology 12:369-
386.
MER. 1981. Milieu EffectRapportage 6. Voorlopige algemene richtlijnen. The Hague,
The Netherlands: Staatsuitgeverij (in Dutch).
Overbeek, H. H. 1987. Exploitation of a 1 MW-wind turbine. In European Wind Energy
Conference 1986 Vol. H, W. Palz and E. Sesto (eds). Rome, Italy: A. Raguzzi.
Verkuijlen, E. Tjtsma, D., Wolsink, M., and Westra, C. A. 1987. Capacity estimate of
decentralized wind energy utilization in The Netherlands. In European Wind Energy
Conference 1986 Vol. I, W. Palz and E. Sesto (eds). Rome, Italy: A. Raguzzi.
Verkuijlen, E. and Westra, C. A. 1985. Shadow hindrance by wind turbines. In European
Wind Energy Conference Hamburg (FRG) 1984, W. Palz (ed). Bedford, UK: H.S.
Stephens.
Wolf, C. P. 1983. Social Impact Assessment: Methodological overview. In Environmental
Impact Assessment, PADC Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning Unit (eds).
Boston, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Wolsink, M. 1987a. Wind power for the electricity supply of houses. The Netherlands
Journal of Housing and Environmental Research 2(3): 195-214.
Wolsink, M. 1987b. Public acceptance of large WECS in The Netherlands. In European
Wind Energy Conference 1986 Vol. H, W. Palz and E. Sesto (eds). Rome, Italy: A.
Raguzzi.