Public reactions towards wind energy instalments. Case study: Romania and the Netherlands

Open access


Wind energy experienced an exponential development in the past two decades, forming a main source of energy today, but also a frequently encountered issue of debate due to the increased proximity of wind turbines to citizens’ residence, especially in the case of the Western part of the European Union. Although the benefits of renewable sources of energy represent a compulsory effort towards ensuring sustainable energy strategies for the future, due to the increased pressure of balancing climate change, limitation of traditional energy resources and economic competition, the expansion of wind parks has caused strong reactions of local communities in many regions leading to the reorganization of public exposure strategies of many companies in the field. This research intends to offer a sample of public perceptions of wind turbines depending on several influence factors, based on the answers of 64 Dutch citizens and 40 Romanian respondents. Through the implementation of the Delphi method based on questionnaires and interviews, an overview of perceptions towards placement of wind turbines in the two analyzed countries has been offered, providing significant answers to the influence factors of public reactions for or against wind turbines. The main results of the research revealed the importance of financial benefits in increasing public acceptance of wind farms, as well as several subjective factors, such as the visual impact of wind turbines and onshore or offshore placement, that contribute to a positive or negative behavior of citizens towards it.


  • Abe, K., Saito, T., Taguchi, M., Mishima, N. (2016), “A Study on Reaction of Residents to Wind Turbines to Promote Local Economy”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 40, pp. 463-468.

  • Berndt, M. L. (2015), “Influence of concrete mix design on CO2 emissions for large wind turbine foundations”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 83, pp. 608–614.

  • Blyth, D. (2015), “Protests against giant wind turbines in Dutch-Flemish border area”, Flanderstoday, available at: (accessed September 4th, 2016).

  • David Suzuki Foundation. (2013), “Wind power opponents may be blowing hot air”, available at: (accessed September 4th, 2016).

  • de Boer, J., Zuidema, C. (2013), “Towards an integrated energy landscape”, Paper for AESOP-ACSP Joint Congress, available at: (accessed September 5th, 2016).

  • DutchNews. (2014), “Tourist companies join protests about offshore wind farms”,, available at: (accessed September 6th, 2016).

  • Eggink, E. (2013), “Offshore Wind Power Together Towards Social Support - An analysis of three key-stakeholder groups in the Netherlands and their views on social acceptance issues”, Utrecht University,

  • Groothuis, P.A., Groothuis, J.D., Whitehead, J.C. (2008). “Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed”, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 1545–1550.

  • EWEA. (2015), “Wind in power. 2014 European statistics”, EWEA, available at: (accessed September 10th, 2016).

  • EWEA (2016), “Public acceptance of wind energy”, EWEA, available at: (accessed September 10th, 2016).

  • Jay, S.A. (2008), At the Margins of Planning: Offshore Wind Farms in the United Kingdom, Ashgate: Aldershot.

  • Lilley, M.B., Firestone, J., Kempton, W. (2010), “The Effect of Wind Power Installations on Coastal Tourism”, Energies, Vol. 3, pp. 1-22.

  • Navrud, S., Bråten, K.G. (2007), “Consumers' Preferences for Green and Brown Electricity: a Choice Modelling Approach”, Revue d'économie politique, Vol. 117, pp. 795-811.

  • Wolsink M. (2007), “Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation”, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 2692-2704,

  • Wolsink M. (2010), “Near-shore wind power-protected seascapes, environment talist’s attitudes and the technocratic planning perspective”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 195-203.

Management & Marketing

Challenges for the Knowledge Society

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.159
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.206


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 18 18 18
PDF Downloads 10 10 10