Contested energy transitions: framing public acceptance of solar development in ecologically sensitive areas in Wisconsin

Abstract

Despite prevalent public support for solar energy, recurring local pushback over siting underscores the need to explore how ecological risk, procedural fairness, and community values influence acceptance. This study analyzes 52 public comments on the proposed Vista Sands Solar Project in Wisconsin using a hybrid framework that integrates the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy model with Framing Theory. Findings show widespread support for renewable energy, but acceptance becomes conditional when projects are perceived to disrupt ecosystems, undermine place-based identity, weaken procedural legitimacy, create distributive inequities, or rely on inadequate risk mitigation. The most prominent themes—siting conflict (22.8%), ecological impacts (21.9%), and procedural legitimacy (19.1%)—align closely with dominant comment tones of strong opposition (32.5%) and cautious support (35.8%). A Kruskal–Wallis test indicates marginal variation in sentiment across themes (H = 10.26, p = 0.068), suggesting that discursive tone is more closely tied to specific concerns than to generalized attitudes toward solar energy. Opposition was frequently spoken through affective and moral claims rooted in intergenerational land stewardship and concern for species such as the Greater Prairie-Chicken, while conditional support depended on credible mitigation measures, procedural transparency, and just siting practices. Overall, the hybrid framework proves how structural governance processes and culturally embedded narratives co-create social acceptance. To ensure durable legitimacy, renewable energy planning must engage local ecological knowledge, address procedural and distributive inequities, and acknowledge siting trade-offs using frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to align nature-related risk management with institutional decision-making and community expectations.

Keywords

Social acceptance / Framing theory / Renewable energy / Utility-scale solar / Community engagement / Energy transition

References

[1] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process, 1991, 50(2): 179-211

[2] Alcaraz JLG, Reza JRD, Fig.eroa LJ M, Aryanfar Y, Alvarez JLR, Vargas AR. Influence of government policies, environmental concerns, and attitudes toward solar panel purchase intention. J Clean Prod, 2025, 491: 144765

[3] AlQershi N, Thurasamy R. Is the sun the new battleground? Investigating the future of energy conflicts over solar power. Energy Res Social Sci, 2025, 130: 104414

[4] Andrade-Arias AS, Kabir G, Mirmohammadsadeghi M, Gunasekaran A, Elizondo-Noriega A. Exploring public perspectives on solar energy adoption in Mexico. Renewable Energy, 2024, 213: 118321

[5] Bär D, Feuerriegel S, Li T, Weinmann M. Message framing to promote solar panels. Nat Commun, 2023, 14(1): 7187

[6] Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C. The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environ Politics, 2005, 14(4): 460-477

[7] Bessette DL, DePew R. Public perceptions of renewable energy projects in the U.S. Midwest. Energy Res Social Sci, 2021, 76: 102065

[8] Bidwell D. B.K. Uneasy tensions in energy justice and systems transformation. Nat Energy, 2023, 8: 317-320

[9] Brás OR, Ferreira V, Carvalho A. People of the sun: Local resistance and solar energy (in) justice in southern Portugal. Energy Res Social Sci, 2024, 113: 103529

[10] Buck HJ, Suarez V, Young T. Reimagining benefits from climate infrastructure and investments. Energy Res Social Sci, 2026, 131: 104501

[11] Carlisle JE, Solan D, Kane SL, Joe J. Utility-scale solar and public attitudes toward siting: A critical examination of proximity. Land Use Policy, 2016, 58: 491-501

[12] Chen H-C, Lee C-H, Wallace Seekings TB, Nguyen LB. Assessing the public’s social acceptance of renewable energy management in Taiwan. Land, 2025, 14(1): 121

[13] Crago CL, Feyzollahi M, Harper RW. Solar power or forests? A cost-benefit analysis of forest land conversion in the Northeastern United States. Land Use Policy, 2025, 158: 107679

[14] Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 20184Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

[15] Delcayre H, Bourdin S. In search of fertile ground: How territorial characteristics influence the social acceptability of renewable energy projects. Environ Manage, 2025, 75(4): 867-882

[16] Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Community Appl Social Psychol, 2009, 19(6): 426-441

[17] Dokshin FA. The public speaks: Using large-scale public comments data in public response research. Energy Res Social Sci, 2022, 91: 102689

[18] Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs, 2008, 62(1): 107-115

[19] Entman RM. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Communication, 1993, 43(4): 51-58

[20] Fast S. Social acceptance of renewable energy: Trends, concepts, and geographies. Geogr Compass, 2013, 7(12): 853-866

[21] Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience, 1974, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

[22] Gong H, Lin C, Sautner Z, Schmid T (2025) Biodiversity impacts of renewable energy. Available at SSRN 5759025

[23] Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis, 2012, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

[24] Hernandez RR, Easter SB, Murphy-Mariscal ML, Maestre FT, Tavassoli M, Allen EB, Allen MF. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2014, 29: 766-779

[25] Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 2005, 15(9): 1277-1288

[26] Hussain MM, Concetti C, Toke D, Thomas K, Duffy P, Vergunst J. Here comes the sun: Determinants of solar farm planning at local authority level in England. Energy Res Social Sci, 2025, 120: 103916

[27] Jenkins K, McCauley D, Heffron R, Stephan H, Rehner R. Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Res Social Sci, 2016, 11: 174-182

[28] Konisky DM, Teodoro MP. When governments regulate governments. Am J Polit Sci, 2016, 60(3): 559-574

[29] Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2010) Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects

[30] Madden K (2025) Vista Sands Solar Farm reaches deal to protect greater prairie chickens in Portage County. Stevens Point Journal. https://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/06/30/vista-sands-solar-farm-reaches-deal-to-protect-greater-prairie-chickens-in-portage-county/84420267007/

[31] Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Res, 2000, 1(2): Art20

[32] McIntyre T, Olvermann M, Rombach M, Renwick A, de Koning W. Here comes the sun: Social acceptability of solar photovoltaics in New Zealand. J Royal Soc New Z, 2025, 55(4): 1073-1090

[33] Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 20143Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

[34] Pasqualetti MJ. Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geogr Rev, 2011, 101(2): 201-223

[35] Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 20154Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

[36] Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (2025) Vista Sands Solar Project. Wisconsin Public Service Commission. https://psc.wi.gov/Pages/CommissionActions/CasePages/VistaSandsSolarProject.aspx

[37] Rakowska J, Maciejczak M, Batyk IM, Farelnik E. Rural–Urban differences in solar renewable energy investments supported by public finance in Poland. Energies, 2022, 15(22): 8476

[38] Reitsma A (2020) Understanding residents’ public acceptance of the development of solar farms (Master’s thesis). University of Twente. https://essay.utwente.nl/82655/

[39] Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 20163Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

[40] Sánchez-Tabernero G, Muñoz-Sosa C, Hidalgo-Muñoz AR, Galán JI, Tabernero C. Understanding the causes of social acceptance and rejection of a uranium mine development project in Northwestern Spain. Sustainability, 2025, 17(2): 429

[41] Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236(4799): 280-285

[42] Solaris Renewables (2023) Public support for solar energy: Solar becoming mainstream. https://solarisrenewables.com/blog/public-support-for-solar-energy-solar-becoming-mainstream

[43] Sovacool BK, Lipson MM, Chard R. Tempting technofix: Solar microgrids and the need for political engagement. Energy Policy, 2019, 130: 55-64

[44] Stantec (2022) April) Project conservation areas and array siting – Vista Sands Solar LLC [Map]. Stantec Consulting Services Inc

[45] Stokes LC, Warshaw C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat Energy, 2017, 2: 17107

[46] Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A. The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: An empirical comparison. Environ Sci Policy, 2014, 37: 23-33

[47] Sütterlin B, Siegrist M. Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective. Energy Policy, 2017, 106: 356-366

[48] Uebelhor E, Hintz O, Mills SB, Randall A. Utility-scale solar in the Great Lakes: Analyzing community reactions to solar developments. Sustainability, 2021, 13(4): 1677

[49] van den Berg K, Tempels B. The role of community benefits in community acceptance of multifunctional solar farms in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 2022, 122: 106344

[50] Walker G. Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode, 2009, 41(4): 614-636

[51] Windemer R. Considering time in land use planning: An assessment of end-of-life decision making for commercially managed onshore wind schemes. Land Use Policy, 2019, 87: 104024

[52] Wolsink M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans Inst Br Geogr, 2006, 31(1): 85-91

[53] Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(5): 2683-2691

[54] Zander KK, Mathur D, Mathew S, Garnett ST. Public views about the world’s largest proposed solar farm in remote Australia. Energy Policy, 2024, 191: 114197

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the International Society of Energy and Environmental Science

Just Accepted

This article has successfully passed peer review and final editorial review, and will soon enter typesetting, proofreading and other publishing processes. The currently displayed version is the accepted final manuscript. The officially published version will be updated with format, DOI and citation information upon launch. We recommend that you pay attention to subsequent journal notifications and preferentially cite the officially published version. Thank you for your support and cooperation.