Agricultural landowner perspectives on wind energy development in Alberta, Canada: insights from the lens of energy justice and democracy

Figures & data

Table 1. Attribute levels used in the vignette experiment.

Attribute	Levels
Location	On your property* On your neighbors’ property On the other side of your county
Ownership structure	A private utility company* Your municipality A local cooperative
Neighbor compensation	Not receive any compensation* Also receive some compensation Receive equal compensation amounts as the landowner hosting the turbines
Inclusion	Only the landowners with turbines* All county residents Only the neighbors who are directly affected
Influence	Express concern about the project* Express concern and potentially sway Have direct say (e.g. through voting, public meetings)
Access to information	Will be confidential* Will be made available to some affected Will be publicly available

Note: * represents status quo wind farm attributes in the province.

Table 2. Respondent sample descriptive statistics.

Variables	n	Mean (Sd)	Min	Max
Farm manager characteristics
Gender (1=male, 0=female)	400	0.90 (0.30)	0	1
Age in years (1 = 18–24; 2 = 25–34; 3 = 35–44; 4 = 45–54; 5 = 55–64; 6 = 65–74; 7 = 75 or over)	397	4.84 (1.20)	2	7
Primary decision maker for this farm (1=yes, 2=no)	401	1.03 (0.17)	1	2
Political affiliation
Conservative	281	0.70 (0.46)	0	1
Liberal	12	0.03 (0.17)	0	1
New Democratic Party (NDP)	17	0.04 (0.20)	0	1
Green	4	0.01 (0.01)	0	1
Other	35	0.03 (0.18)	0	1
Prefer not to say	56	0.13 (0.34)	0	1
Don’t know	22	0.06 (0.23)	0	1
Farm structure
Type of Farm (n)
Crops (206), Livestock (47), Mixed (146)
Size (in acres)	401	2982.53 (4063.85)	13	30500
Percent of household income from farming (1 = 0; 2 = 1–25; 3 = 26–50; 4 = 51–75; 5 = 76–100)	401	4.46 (0.89)	1	5
Views on energy
Likelihood of installation of renewables (4-point scale: 1 = Very Likely; 4 = Very Unlikely)	342	2.76 (0.90)	1	4
Importance of Alberta’s energy sector (5-point scale: 1=Not at all important; 5= Extremely Important)	401	4.09 (0.81)	1	5
Knowledge about wind energy (4-point scale: 1=Nothing at all; 4= Quite a bit)	401	2.52 (0.81)	1	4
Climate change concerns(5-point scale: 1=Strongly disagree; 5=Strongly agree)
I am very concerned about climate change	401	2.89 (1.22)	1	5
We still do not know for sure whether climate change is real or caused by humans	401	3.55 (1.18)	1	5
Climate change will not be an issue here in Alberta	401	2.73 (1.11)	1	5
Alberta adopting renewable energy will help reduce climate change impacts	401	2.52 (1.26)	1	5

Figure 1. Vignette ratings, n = 2406.

Table 3. Latent class model results.

Concept	Vignette Attributes	Class 1: Moderate (50% of sample)	Class 2: Favourable (27% of sample)	Class 3: Oppositional (23% of sample)
Proximity	Location
	on your property^a	−.0300	.0058	−.0351
	on your neighbours’ property	−.0016	−.0589**	−.0336
	on the other side of your county	.0314	.0531	.0687**
Energy Democracy	Ownership structure
	private company^a	−.035**	−.0603**	−.009
	your municipality	−.0001	.0341	.0136
	a local cooperative	.0351**	.0262	−.0050
Distributive Justice	Neighbor compensation
	no compensation^a	−.0884***	−.0794**	−.0936**
	also receive some compensation	.0745***	.1270***	.0116
	receive equal compensation	.0139	−.0475	.082**
Procedural Justice	Inclusion
	only hosting landowners^a	−.0856***	−.0571**	−.1333***
	all county residents	.0367**	−.0200	.0736**
	only those directly affected	.0489	.0771**	.0598
	Influence
	express concern^a	.0209	.0185	−.0115
	express concern/potentially sway	−.0177	−.0533*	−.0071
	have direct say	−.0032	.0349	.0186
	Access to information
	confidential^a	−.0434**	−.0117	−.0299
	made available to some affected	.0095	.0319	.0351
	will be publicly available	.034**	−.0203	−.0052
	Constant	.6198***	−.2453**	−.3745***

^aNote: Represents the status quo for wind projects in Alberta.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 4. Characteristics of latent class membership based on test of significant difference between means using ANOVA and Tukey HSD.

Variable description	Class 1: Moderate Mean	Class 2: Favorable Mean	Class 3: Oppositional Mean	F Value	Min	Max
A wind farm would be a good thing for my county’s local economy	3.11a*	3.98b	2.05c	458	1	5
Wind turbines are an environmentally-friendly technology	3.13a	3.9b	2.24c	307	1	5
Turbines spoil the beauty of rural landscapes	3.54a	2.7b	4.28c	281	1	5
Concerned about Community/neighbour conflict /neighbour conflict	6.55a	5.4b	8.74c	238	0	10
My community would be excited about a wind farm	0.15a	0.44b	0.04c	179	0	1
Fairness of the development processes	7.18a	5.81b	8.51c	133	0	10
How much do you know about wind energy	2.19a	2.74b	1.7c	132	0	4
How likely are you to install renewable energy technology on your land	2.73a	2.53b	3.09c	45	1	4
Fairness of the compensation payments	7.44a	7.01b	8.37c	34	0	10
My local community is an important part of who I am	3.87a	3.86a	4.21b	34	1	5
How much do you trust or distrust the oil & gas industry	5.83a	6.12b	6.74c	34	1	10
My land is a big part of my identity	4.31a	4.26a	4.58b	31	1	5
Very concerned about climate change	0.38a	0.46b	0.24c	28	0	1
Small farm	0.35a	0.38ab	0.22c	15	0	1

*Means with different letters denote statistically significant differences, at p  .05.

Note: Class membership is defined by the latent class model reported in Table 3.

Table 5. Latent classes of agricultural landowners’ preferences for wind farm attributes and associated concerns (n = 401).

Class 1: Moderate views 50% of sample	Class 2: Favourable views 27% of sample	Class 3: Oppositional views 23% of sample
Wind farm preferences * -Co-operatively owned -Neighbors receive some compensation -All county residents included -Information publicly available	Wind farm preferences * -Neighbors receive some compensation -Only directly affected included	Wind farm preferences * -Turbines located on the other side of county -Neighbors receive equal compensation -All county residents included
Class attributes ** -Somewhat agree wind farms would be good for the county’s local economy -Somewhat agree wind turbines are environmentally friendly -Somewhat agree wind turbines spoil beauty of rural landscapes -Somewhat concerned about neighbour conflict -Somewhat agree community would be excited about a wind farm -Least trusting of oil & gas industry -Somewhat concerned about climate change	Class attributes ** -Agree wind farms would be good for the county’s local economy -Agree wind turbines are environmentally friendly -Disagree wind turbines spoil beauty of rural landscapes -Least concerned about neighbour conflict -Agree community would be excited about a wind farm -Somewhat trusting of oil & gas industry -Most concerned about climate change	Class attributes ** -Disagree wind farms would be good for the county’s local economy -Disagree wind turbines are environmentally friendly -Agree wind turbines spoil beauty of rural landscapes- Most concerned about neighbour conflict -Disagree community would be excited about a wind farm -Most trusting of oil & gas industry -Least concerned about climate change

*Preferred wind project attributes as determined by a latent class model.

**Class-specific differences in respondent attributes determined by ANOVA (Tukey HSD, significant differences between means).