Wind farm acceptance for sale? Evidence from the Danish wind farm co-ownership scheme

Katinka Johansen, Jens Emborg

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)
71 Downloads (Pure)


The Danish Renewable Energy Act features several financial incentive structures with direct local level implications. One of these is the wind farm co-ownership scheme, WCS. In this study, we explore local perceptions of the WCS via survey data collected during the Danish near-shore bid for tender in 2015 from almost 2000 respondents. Empirical evidence suggests that demographic facts, such as gender and age, influence the general appeal of the scheme, and as engagement in wind farms via the WCS presupposes investment liquidity, the WCS is not equal for all. Furthermore, most potential WCS-investors already support the planned wind farm projects, and many project opponents will not engage themselves in something they are against in principle. Finally, economic benefits potentially gained via the WCS do not appear to compensate for values feared violated by wind farms by many wind farm project stakeholders. While the WCS is a very positive policy attempt at creating local engagement via wind farm co-ownership, it is clear that the scheme alone will not adequately compensate for local wind farm related grievances. Real world facts and complications, such as demographics, preconceived project perceptions and personal values, get in the way. Implications of the study for related policies are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEnergy Policy
Issue numberJune
Pages (from-to)413-422
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - 5 Apr 2018
Externally publishedYes


  • offshore wind farms
  • local acceptance
  • local engagement
  • co-ownership
  • ownership
  • wind farms
  • renewable energy
  • wind farm planning
  • energy policy


Dive into the research topics of 'Wind farm acceptance for sale? Evidence from the Danish wind farm co-ownership scheme'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this