The rural landscapes chosen were representative of the country’s diverse landscapes and not of their capacity to possibly host wind turbines in the future. However, with the superimposed photos, a maximum number of rules were respected to ensure they were as plausible as possible; for instance, the legal distance from homes if there happened to be any on the photo, the proportions of the masts, etc. The people interviewed had to comment on the landscape’s attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 7, i.e. not attractive at all to very attractive. “We therefore had assessments of landscapes with and without wind turbines that we were able to compare", Vincent Vanderheyden sums up. “We were thus able to determine if in such or such a landscape, the presence of a wind turbine significantly spoilt people’s enjoyment of this landscape. Of course, as we expected, the presence of a wind turbine reduced the attractiveness of the landscapes in the majority of cases. But in some cases, the wind turbines increased the landscapes’ attractiveness value. For instance, this was the case for landscapes featuring wasteland, industrial zones, etc. Hence, not very attractive for the majority of us. Adding a wind turbine somehow made them useful.”

The second part of the study was aimed at understanding the attitudes of people living next to wind farms. The researchers began by targeting five farms, three in Flanders and two in Wallonia; four where the wind turbines were functioning already and one where it was still in the planning stage (it has since been completed). On the Walloon side, the Houyet wind farm near Beauraing and the Mettet one were chosen. The first one was selected because it was an initiative of the inhabitants, some of whom were environmental activists. The developers wanted the local population to participate in the action by making them the shareholders, among other things, and rewarding them in the form energy. One of the wind turbines was even reserved for the children with the parents buying the shares in their names. The second Walloon site was chosen because it was the opposite of the previous one. This time, it was an industrial initiative which initially planned the construction of some 40 wind turbines spread across several farms. When it was launched, this project met with strong opposition initiated by several people because some homes were going to be surrounded by the wind turbines. The developer therefore had to reduce the number and only develop a handful of wind turbines in the part where the landscape had the least value in the inhabitants' eyes.  On the Flemish side, a site located close to Beveren was selected because it lay between two communes, one of which was in favour and the other not. The Middelkerke farm, close to the coast, was chosen because it is an old one and was developed in several phases hence with different technologies, and because there are a lot of holiday homes in the area, which was likely to affect the points of view. Finally, the site in Courtrai, situated in an industrial zone, was selected... because it wasn’t yet in existence when the research started. Therefore, this was an opportunity to follow the implementation process.

The aim of this second part of the survey was therefore to understand how attitudes were formed faced with the placement of wind turbines. The researchers met those involved with the development of the wind turbines and the opponents, representatives from the authorities, and managers from the “Association pour la Promotion des Energies Renouvables” (APERe) on the French-speaking side, who serve as wind turbine facilitators for the region, as well as their Flemish counterparts. And, of course, the project sponsors, the local authorities and local inhabitants.