During the interviews, the researchers tried to reconstruct the evolution of people’s feeling over time. “We examined the different viewpoints on renewable energy at different levels”, Vincent Vanderheyden explains. “First of all, the need to develop renewable energies is unanimously acknowledged on an international level. The same is true on a national level: we know that there are European commitments we have to meet. When we get to the regional level, responsible for the development of wind turbines in Belgium, you can see the first stirrings of a difference between the need to develop renewable energy on the one hand, and personal interests on the other:  “these types of energy must be developed but not on my doorstep!" These rifts are accentuated at a local level: for the local inhabitants,  they share only the disadvantages but not the benefits.”

The first argument put forward to convey this frustration is visual: “my landscape will be modified”. Then there are the arguments relating to noise, the sound of the machines if they are old ones, the sound of the air being displaced, the background noise if the technology used is more recent. The noise isn’t loud in terms of decibels but it can be annoying if you become aware of it. For some people, there is also a stroboscopic effect when the sun reflects off the rotating blades. Finally, some people put forward rather more fallacious arguments such as the fear of the blades breaking or interference with bird migration corridors! The economic aspect is also very present. For farmers, and especially market gardeners with small plots, the shade cast by a 150-m high mast can be significant... but that can be compensated by renting the land: one wind turbine brings in approximately EUR 5000 a year! Another economic argument: the potential capital loss of a house or a piece of land. The argument in favour of employment doesn’t seem to be relevant either according to the opponents: the wind turbines aren’t built here and the only sustainable jobs are those relating to maintenance and, to a lesser extent, the excavation works. “What dominates in all these viewpoints”, Vincent Vanderheyden continues, “and what is the determining factor, is this impression that there are nothing but disadvantages for ‘me’ while the ‘others’ (the developer, the person who owns the land next to mine where the wind turbine will be installed, the electricity producer, etc.) will be the winners and will pocket all the benefits.”

Of course, these arguments aren’t set in stone. They vary according to the size of the farm (the more the initiative seems small-scale rather than industrial, the better it is accepted) and the type of decision-makers (a local initiative will be more easily accepted by citizens). Finally, the researcher also noted an evolution in perceptions over time. The key moment is when a plan to install wind turbines in a certain place is announced. This announcement is compulsory; it takes the form of a public meeting during which the project is presented. “This is when the first opinions are forged, which will often be lasting”, Vincent Vanderheyden emphasises. This is when groups are formed, in general, opponents. Attitudes evolve more or less according to a U curve. Before the announcement of a placement project, everyone finds it positive. When the announcement is made, there is often a strong, argued rejection. When the wind turbines have been in operation for some time, a proportion of the local inhabitants abandon their opposition. But for this to happen, certain rules must be respected. It is essential to reduce local costs (noise, spoiling the landscape, etc.) and increase local benefits (local shareholding system, local job creation for the turbines’ maintenance, cheaper electricity supply). Rules of good practice, you could say, from which the developers should draw inspiration.