Many thanks for the positive reception of our MS, and for the helpful comments and suggestions.

Abstract

Regarding the abstract, we will make sure to restructure the abstract so that our definition of the communities of scientists/epistemic is spelled out from the outset; hereby we will tie the technical literature to the engineering discipline, health-based to medicine/psychology, and social acceptance literature to the social science discipline.

Introduction

• In the revision, we have decided to omit the notion of “politicized” noise as we do not use this term more than once in the MS. Instead, we have reformulated it as “controversial” (that is, contested) noise.
• Regarding your comment (line 35) on lacking references regarding controversies and issues around wind turbine sound, we have added a few references.
• Thanks for your comment on lacking specificity on the type of projects funded to inquire into wind turbine noise. We have omitted the notion of ‘ambitious’, instead qualifying them according to their type (research, commercial).
• Regarding the notion of co-produced noise, we have decided to reformulate to simplify. Instead, we state that different communities create/produce their own understanding of what noise is, and that this has implications for how they deal with it.
• In other publications, we have directly addressed public perceptions of noise, but the scope of this paper is to focus on how the scientific literatures have looked at the issue of noise; here, the social acceptance literature is the one engaging most directly with public perceptions. We have added a sentence in the paper on this scoping issue (introduction).

Results

Thanks for this comment. We have now added an explanation of our use of interview data in the methods section. Our main data for this paper has been the literature reviewed (text analysis). We conducted interviews with the purpose of corroborating, cross-checking and verifying our analysis of these texts. Meanwhile, we consider using quotes from these expert interviews out of scope for this paper; we elaborate more on these in other papers.

Last, we want to thank you for commenting on the issue of animals and their perception of noise. We believe the three reviewed literatures do not deal much with this and so we have not treated it in the MS. We hope that future research could look into this overlooked aspect of wind turbine noise.

Thank you for taking the time to read our paper and for the detailed suggestions to add to our MS.

The overall comment concerns the lack of fundamentals of sound and noise characteristics of wind turbines, and the reviewer has kindly provided a number of technical details. We will certainly add some extra details about these aspects where they enhance a particular point. However, given the scope and aim of this paper, namely to offer an account of different understandings of noise, and to do this based on social science methods and perspectives, we cannot go into too many details with the technical aspects. We consider that the fundamentals of sound and noise are well documented in scientific text books  and the technical literature, and our aim is not to reiterate these.

Indeed, we argue that through understanding how the different scientific communities see ‘noise’ as something different, we highlight why resolving the issue of noise continues to be difficult. We then go on to suggest that these communities could benefit from engaging more with each other, resulting in fresh input to, for example, technical research, and aligning efforts to solve the noise issue.

Many thanks for the helpful comments in the main text. 

We will make sure to rewrite the parts where comments relate to language and clarification; we agree with the comments provided.

Regarding the comment labeled 'major omission', we will work on a section that briefly contains the fundamentals of sound. (Also see our response to R2 on the same matter).

Many thanks for the helpful comments in the main text. 

We will make sure to rewrite the parts where comments relate to language and clarification; we agree with the comments provided.

Regarding the comment labeled 'major omission', we will work on a section that briefly contains the fundamentals of sound. (Also see our response to R2 on the same matter).

Thanks for the comments provided to our MS, these are all very helpful.

Regarding the comments on language use and clarifications/definitions, we will make sure to take these into account and revise accordingly.

Regarding the overall comment on the ‘major omission’ – namely the lack of “fundamentals of sound” (p. 16) – we will certainly add some extra lines about these aspects where they enhance a particular point. However, given the scope and aim of this paper, namely to offer an account of different understandings of noise, and to do this based on social science methods and perspectives, we cannot go into too many details with the technical aspects. We consider that the fundamentals of sound and noise are well documented in scientific text books  and the technical literature, and our aim is not to reiterate these.

Indeed, we argue that through understanding how the different scientific communities see ‘noise’ as something different, we highlight why resolving the issue of noise continues to be difficult. We then go on to suggest that these communities could benefit from engaging more with each other, resulting in fresh input to, for example, technical research, and aligning efforts to solve the noise issue.