The present article deals with two key drivers of social acceptance of wind energy: procedural justice and distributional justice. It is based on a comparative expert assessment carried out in the frame of the Horizon 2020 project WinWind covering six European countries. The focus of the paper is on procedural and financial participation of citizens and local stakeholders in wind energy projects. The first part covers institutional arrangements for public engagement in two areas of the decision-making process—wind turbine zoning/siting in spatial plans and authorization procedures. Here, three levels of public involvement—information, consultation and participation—were analyzed. The second part examines active and financial participation of citizens and local stakeholders. Here, we distinguish between two different modes of governance: institutionalized forms of public governance and voluntary forms of corporate governance. The outcomes suggest that concrete paths to the social acceptance of wind energy are fostered via appropriate institutional spaces for public engagement. Furthermore, missing opportunities for active and passive financial participation can have strong negative consequences for community acceptance

We conducted a contingent valuation survey to estimate the social acceptance and preferences of a local community towards the installation of a wind farm in a countryside area presenting significant aesthetic, cultural, and identity place attributes. We focused on two opposite potential externalities caused by wind turbines. The first relates to the contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emission through the production of green energy. The second concerns the degradation of rural landscape assets. In the sample, we identified factors for or against the installation of the wind farm. People in favor of the wind farm were asked to state their willingness to pay for reducing the effect of global warming by purchasing electricity produced by wind turbines. People against it were solicited to declare their willingness to pay to avoid landscape loss. Welfare measures were elicited using a payment card elicitation format and quantified through different estimation models. An analysis of data revealed high heterogeneity in attitudes, beliefs, and preferences of citizens towards the two potentially competing environmental goods. The willingness to pay for reducing the effect of global warming was much higher than the willingness to pay for avoiding the loss of the rural landscape.

No abstract

No abstract