Coordinator

• Dialoge.digital, DTU

Topics and objectives

Interest in the social dimensions of AWE has increased in recent years, as seen in various national and international research projects on the acceptance of AWE (e.g., NEON Research, JustWind4All, GrowFlowFly, EKElevate, Wimby). However, despite growing attention to the topic, the social impacts of AWE remain underexplored. Existing research has largely focused on community acceptance of AWE and a limited number of current prototypes.

This WP extends its scope to include broader societal dimensions, while also deepening our understanding of community perceptions of various AWE designs. The goal is to identify relevant development and deployment factors within all of society.

Adapting to technological and deployment developments: As AWE technology has advanced and continues to evolve, research must adapt to assess how new developments –such as technical and operational advancements, multiple system deployments, and the integration of mitigation measures like noise reduction techniques– affect acceptance of different stakeholders. Comparative studies are also
needed to examine shifts in perception across different stages of commercialization as AWE projects transition from testing to full deployment.

Additionally, acceptance research must go beyond a single AWE system design as different designs may have distinct impacts and elicit varying responses from communities and the public. Geographic, cultural, and economic diversity –particularly in key markets like the Global South, remote islands and island
nations– must also be considered.

Furthermore, a focus on stakeholder perspectives and dynamics, including developers, policymakers, and local authorities, will enhance understanding of AWE adoption within broader socio-political and market contexts.

• The WP aims to answer the following questions:
  How do perceptual and fairness-related factors (e.g., noise, visual presence, safety, distributive/procedural justice) interact to shape community acceptance of AWE over time?
• How do geographic, cultural, and economic contexts influence perceptions of AWE, and what patterns of acceptance emerge across different case types and stakeholder groups?
• How do evolving AWE system designs and deployment scales affect stakeholder and community acceptance across different commercialization stages?
• What processes and actor networks foster institutional legitimacy of AWE among policymakers, financiers, and regulators, and how do they interact with public and market perceptions? WP4 will closely collaborate with the industry partners to link surveys, workshops, interviews, sound measurements etc. to concrete AWE projects. WP4 will also collaborate specifically with Tasks 62 (Social
  Science for Collaborative Wind Energy Planning & Participation) and Task 59 (WREN – Working Together to Resolve Environmental Effects of Wind Energy) to determine whether AWE-specific aspects should be integrated into these Tasks or addressed independently.

This WP will integrate social science expertise to explore perception and acceptance of AWE. Key topics include:

– Framing, Narratives, and Public Imaginaries

Focus. How AWE is represented, communicated, and imagined by different audiences. Public meanings of AWE — shaped by media, policy language, and visual communication — influence acceptance before, during, and after deployment. Consideration of local context or the geographical regions where AWES are
set up.

• How do metaphors (“flying power plants,” “energy kites”) shape perception and emotional resonance?
• What narratives dominate media, policy, and industry communication about AWE?
• How can storytelling, visualization, and transparent messaging foster curiosity and trust instead
  of scepticism or fear?
• How can the (location-specific?) narrative(s) be co-created to be credible?

Outcome: AWE Narrative & Communication Toolkit – a guide for industry and policymakers on framing, storytelling, and visualization strategies that build trust, curiosity, and legitimacy across diverse contexts.

– Socio-Political and Institutional Acceptance

Focus: Understanding how political, market, and institutional actors shape the conditions for AWE acceptance and legitimacy. Without institutional legitimacy, even community-friendly projects face regulatory or financial barriers.

• How do policy frameworks, funding schemes, and market structures influence perceptions of AWE’s credibility and risk?
• What forms of institutional support (e.g. certification, insurance, grid access) are necessary for large-scale deployment?
• How can AWE be integrated into national renewable energy narratives and planning systems?
• How does the current shift to more conservative positions in a lot of societies affect the acceptance of AWE?
• Consider interlinkages to components of a project: institutional acceptance, financing, technical viability, local support.
• Consider that the legal context for AWE is not established yet: Many exceptions are necessary but required as conditions (see also outcomes of WP3).

Outcome: Institutional Legitimacy Roadmap – synthesis of policy, regulatory, and market recommendations to strengthen institutional confidence and support for AWE deployment.

– Community Perceptions and Local Acceptance 

Focus: How do local residents perceive, evaluate, and negotiate AWE installations in their social and environmental context? Local opposition can delay or derail projects; understanding perceptions allows proactive engagement.

• How do visual presence, perceived safety, and fairness of benefit distribution influence acceptance?
• How do perceptions evolve across project phases (planning → testing → operation → decommissioning)?
• What forms of communication, transparency, and dialogue foster trust in developers? There are usually two questions which citizens want to get answers on: Why should I trust you? What is the project about?
• Consider that a simple survey will not work because people may not really understand the technology yet.

Outcome: Local Acceptance Compendium – a field-based synthesis of community case studies, attitude trajectories, and tested communication methods for developers and municipalities.

– Participation, Benefit-Sharing, and Co-Creation

Focus: Exploring financial and non-financial mechanisms that connect communities to AWE benefits and governance. Perceived fairness and agency are key predictors of durable acceptance.

• Which participatory models (ownership, local funds, energy communities) are suitable for AWE’s scale and mobility?
• How can co-design approaches (with residents, local authorities, or NGOs) inform technology and site development?
• How can lessons from wind and solar participation be adapted to AWE’s unique features?

Outcome: Participation & Benefit Model Catalogue – comparative compendium of participatory frameworks, from energy communities to co-design pilots, with evaluation of acceptance impacts.

– Dynamics of Acceptance Across Contexts and Technologies

Focus: Comparative analysis across technologies, designs, and geographic/cultural settings. AWE’s deployment contexts vary — island nations, remote regions, dense Europe — each with unique acceptance challenges.

• How do acceptance dynamics differ between kite-based, wing-based, and tethered systems?
• What regional or cultural factors amplify or mitigate common acceptance issues? How can findings be generalized into flexible guidelines for developers and policymakers?

Outcome: Comparative Atlas of AWE Acceptance – integrated visual and analytical synthesis mapping how social acceptance evolves across contexts, technologies, and time.

– Sound Emissions and Perceived Noise

Focus: Quantifying and qualifying sound exposure, and its influence on annoyance, stress, and perceived risk. Noise is often underestimated in early AWE research but can become a decisive acceptance factor.

• How can sound measurement and modelling be adapted to AWE’s dynamic flight operations?
• Which subjective (trust, context, visibility) and objective (decibel, frequency) factors drive perceived noise?
• What mitigation strategies (technical, spatial, communicative) are most effective?

Outcome: Sound & Perception Database – harmonized measurement protocols, empirical data, and perceptual analysis linked to AWE prototypes, integrated into the WP4 shared database (D4.1).

– Environmental Impacts and Public Response

Focus: How ecological effects — real or perceived — influence social acceptance. Perceptions of harm to birds, bats, or landscapes can undermine the “green” image of AWE. Collaborate closely with IEA Wind Task 59 WREN on environmental impacts.

• What are the real, measurable impacts on birds and bats? Collect studies and impact assessments (carried out as part of EIAs prior to a project as well as from continuous monitoring during the project and/operation)
• How do environmental assessments and monitoring results affect public trust?
• What communication and co-observation approaches can increase credibility of impact studies?
• How do environmental NGOs and local nature groups position themselves toward AWE?

Outcome: Environmental Trust Framework – guidance on co-observation, transparent data sharing, and nature communication practices to strengthen credibility of AWE environmental management.

– Deliverables

• D4.1 Guidelines for Socially Responsive AWE Design and Deployment / AWE Narrative & Communication Toolkit
• D4.2 Synthesis Report on Social Acceptance, Narratives, and Institutional Legitimacy of AWE
• D4.3 Global Knowledge Database on Social and Environmental Impact Studies of AWE (incl. Sound & Perception Database and Environmental Trust Framework)
• D4.4 Comparative Case Studies on Acceptance Dynamics and Stakeholder Perceptions / Local Acceptance Compendium incl. Participation & Benefit Model Catalogue

– Milestones

M4.1 Kick-off and Conceptual Framework Agreed
M4.2 Case Study Protocols Finalized and Database Operational
M4.3 Cross-Case Synthesis and Preliminary Guidelines Validated