the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Mar 2026
A Perspective on Grand Challenges in Social Aspects of Wind Energy
Abstract. Wind energy is central to the global transition toward zero-carbon energy systems. Yet, its development increasingly intersects with complex social dynamics. This perspective highlights the grand social challenges facing wind energy, emphasising the need to move beyond techno-centric paradigms and toward inclusive, interdisciplinary socio-technical approaches. Drawing on recent research and field experience, we describe five grand social challenges for wind energy: spatial relations, acceptable turbine design, smart integration, public perception, and policy frameworks. We argue that addressing these challenges requires rethinking the relationship between wind energy and society—not as a barrier to overcome, but as a co-creative force in shaping sustainable energy futures.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Wind Energy Science.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(545 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-42', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lena Kitzing, 08 May 2026
reply
Your main concern is acknowledged and understood. We will add a summary of the Nature Energy paper and also explain the added contribution of this perspectives piece. Here is a first explanatory response:
The publication by Kirkegaard et al. (2023a) is a review article that systematically collects and analyses state-of-the-art scientific insight related to the complex interactions between society and wind energy technology. The authors put an interdisciplinary lens on all phases of a wind energy project—design, planning, development, operation and end of life—and thereby identify a series of key research gaps—or what could be coined as socio-technical grand challenges—along the full life cycle. By showing that challenges related to space, scale and system are not just technical or economic but are entangled with social dimensions, they demonstrate that these areas are “ripe for interdisciplinary enquiry” (ibid., p. 656). The authors then outline a research agenda for interdisciplinary socio-technical research.
This article provides a new and updated perspective on the grand social challenges. It (1) reframes the discussion in Kirkegaard et al. (2023a) for the context of a more technologically-focused research audience, with added explanations and solution-oriented research examples, (2) regroups and updates identified challenges along areas of engagement (instead of lifecycle phases), 3) adds a discussion of challenges related to policy design research, and (4) adds emphasis on the more recent challenge of misinformation and political headwinds. Thereby, it complements the collection of grand challenges in this journal through aligned purpose and style.
Your minor suggestions are acknowledged and we will ensure to implement them accordingly in our revision. Thank you very much for taking the time to review our perspective.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-42-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lena Kitzing, 08 May 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-42', Carlo L. Bottasso, 15 Apr 2026
reply
This perspective convincingly describes the social complexities of wind energy, yet remains silent on a rapidly emerging constraint: the destabilizing role of political systems themselves. While policy frameworks are discussed as adaptive and enabling, recent developments show that they can also become actively destructive. In such contexts, calls for “more data” or “better models” appear woefully inadequate. The field is not only shaped by social acceptance or governance design, but by deeper currents of polarization that can undermine entire knowledge infrastructures overnight. This raises a deeper question: how can societies safeguard critical knowledge systems and technological progress against ideologically driven policy rollbacks, especially as climate impacts, energy security concerns, and decarbonization needs intensify? Is this one of the (or even the) most profound grand challenges facing wind energy today?
I invite the authors to consider whether these new pressing questions deserve dedicated attention, either here in this paper or in a future article.
Disclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-42-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Lena Kitzing, 08 May 2026
reply
This is a very good point. You are right there are some broader political developments that are clearly concerning and impactful for renewable energy transitions. The rise of populist policies and anti-climate change political sentiment has started to challenge some renewable energy agendas, and a few recently adopted government policies against renewables have had a very visible impact on slowing down renewable energy development in some areas of the world. We will acknowledge this in our perspective even more. At the same time, many of these dynamics are still emerging and evolving, and there is not much research and literature on this topic yet that we can base our perspective on in terms of conclusions and recommendations. We will recheck the current literature body on this issue. At the very least, we will add a short discussion on the topic, at least as an open-ended question as suggested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-42-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Lena Kitzing, 08 May 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 356 | 150 | 24 | 530 | 26 | 29 |
- HTML: 356
- PDF: 150
- XML: 24
- Total: 530
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Thank you for the opportunity to review this commentary. This commentary builds on work on the "Grand Challenges" of wind energy, in which several of the authors have participated. I believe the piece would be of interest and valuable to the readership of the journal.
My main concern is how this piece relates to another commentary published by many of this team in Nature Energy in 2023. This piece is cited in the manuscript and is referenced in the acknowledgements. I suggest, however, that this connection should be made directly in the text, with a brief summary of how this piece makes a contribution beyond that work.
Minor suggestions/comments follow:
1. The very first sentence cites a slide deck by Nat Bullard. I would find this statement more convincing if a more academic or professional source was cited. For example, the authors could site the source of data presented by Bullard. Also, I question how this source appears in the references list.
2. Where the authors discuss technical developments in wind technology (e.g., line 40) it would be helpful to provide some actual statistics or figures that illustrate these developments.
3. Line 42-43 states that contestation over wind is growing; however, one of the citations is 10 years old. The authors may also want to reflect on how implementation of wind energy has long been a source of conflict.
4. Where Batel and Rudolph are cited on line 53, the authors may want to consider siting work by Wolsink or Devine-Wright, which more directly confront the NIMBY concept.
5. At line 60-65, the authors may want to cite Renn and Schweizer (2020), who directly discuss energy and inclusive governance.
6. In discussions of fairness (line 90), it is important to distinguish clearly between procedural and distributive fairness. The authors discuss both concepts, but it would be good to address this difference directly. I also wonder if this would be a good place to acknowledge the extensive field of energy justice.
7. On line 124-125, the authors may want to consider referencing the analytic-deliberative process, which provides a model for engaging multiple parties on technical issues. Again, Renn and Schweizer may be a good resource here.
8. Section 3.3 seemed light in terms of content, compared to some other subsections. It would be helpful if the authors could provide examples of more integrated systems. Perhaps references to microgrids or energy parks.
9. For discussing misinformation, the authors may want to look at Howley et al. (2025). Note also that a recent Pew report highlights the political polarization of public attitudes towards renewable energy in the U.S. in recent years.
10. A careful read of the references is warranted, as there appear to be some errors in the text.