A new study by the Department of Energy found that wind farms have no impact on property values.
Central leg of NIMBY platform takes a hit as Department of Energy study finds property values unaffected by presence of commercial wind farms.
Economists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have found no conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts in communities surrounding wind energy facilities. According to the new report (pdf) neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities has any "consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices."
The team of economists led by Ben Hoen, Ryan Wiser and Peter Cappers of LBNL, along with Mark Thayer of San Diego State University and Gautam Sethi of Bard College, employed a hedonic model like those used by real estate professionals to estimate the marginal contribution of individual house or community characteristics to sales prices.
The DOE-sponsored study examined 7,500 single-family property sales between 1996 and 2007 in order to record values from before the announcement of a wind energy facility to a period after it was built and operating.
"Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact," write the report's authors.
Wind energy industry welcomes report findings
Although the amount of electricity supplied to the U.S. grid from wind power projects remains a relatively low 2%, many expect that percentage will will rise and that wind energy could contribute a significant percentage of future electricity supply. Most recently, President Obama, in his 2009 State of the Union address, called for a doubling of renewable energy in three years (by 2012). In 2008 the U.S. Department of Energy produced a report that analyzed the feasibility of meeting 20% of U.S. electricity demand with wind energy by 2030.
To meet these goals, a significant amount of wind project development activity would be required. According to the paper, if the average size of wind power projects built in the U.S. in 2007 and 2008 was approximately 100 MW and the total amount of capacity required to reach 20% wind electricity is roughly 300,000 MW, to achieve 20% wind electricity by 2030, a total of 3,000 wind facilities may need to be sited and permitted. And that creates the potential for lots of land use conflicts, especially if there is a misconception about property values.
“The conclusions of this study could not be more definitive—wind farms do not weaken property values," said American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode in a written statement on Wednesday. "These important research findings offer good news for those communities that might be considering the location of wind farms nearby. Wind energy has multiple benefits: it creates jobs, reduces greenhouse gases, and delivers direct economic benefits to rural communities. Now we can also say that wind energy has no impact on property values.”
The release of the study comes as Massachusetts-based electric provider National Grid announced its intention to negotiate a purchase agreement for the electricity produced by Cape Wind, the proposed offshore wind farm. The project, which will be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. should it gain approval, has been opposed by NIMBY interests often citing aesthetic concerns and the negative impact the turbines will have on the local economy.
People clearly have mixed feelings about having wind turbines in their viewshed and dotting local landscapes and the issue is a polarizing one, to say the least. What do you think? How would you feel about having a wind farm as a neighbor?
Follow Tim Hurst on twitter
Photo: © Mesquite53 | Dreamstime
Follow Timothy B. Hurst on Twitter: 
I think offshore wind farms might even have the opposite effect on local economies as some opponents claim. Until I find a link, this is anecdotal but I recall reading somewhere about the offshore windfarm near Copenhagen that has increased interest in the area with people actually spending their money to travel to the area to see it first hand.
No, tourism and property values are not the same but the idea that wind turbines are universally accepted as a blight on the landscape and therefore drive property values down needs to see this.
As a former resident of South Dakota, let me say that most of those 3,000 wind farms could easily fit on the vast emptiness that is the great state of South Dakota. Plus I’m sure North Dakota could field a few of those sites as well.
Heck, the upper mid-west in general has a lot of empty space that is insanely windy. Lets stick some wind power up there, pay the farmers whose land they’re using some money (they could use it), and everyone will have some clean power.
Or even better. Lets fund wind power in Canada. Put a massive line of wind power stretching from Omaha, Nebraska all the way up through the Iowa, the Dakotas, and Minnesota into Canada. Its all empty space anyways.
So they are letting the Obamabots at the Dept. of Energy who won’t support anyting BUT wind and solar determine whether wind power is bad for real estate values. Uh huh.
GKS: Everything isn’t a conspiracy. Sometimes, right is right and left is right.
I don’t think it matters in rural america. My parents now live close to one in Kansas…no big deal. It would have been nice to have it on our land for the big bucks associated with it, though! I think this matters more to the rich peeps…say the Senator Kennedy types who would rather have others deal with the “eyesore”…
It’s not surprising that there is zero mention of proximity of the industrial turbines to private homes. Most of the cookie cutter ordinances provide 1200′ to the nearest residence (note: *not* property line).
Let’s get real. Who would intentionally want to move next door to a 400 foot turbine, especially if a new purchaser is not on the payroll, i.e., not a host? Doesn’t common sense tell you that property values can’t possibly be what they were pre-wind turbines?
To quote the Danish farmer: “Your own pigs don’t stink”
The other way of looking at this is that high value properties don’t lie in areas favorable towards use with wind power, or that high value communities have been successful in keeping trial-scale wind deployments away.
Quite the contrary, hey. This study ignores offshore wind farms and the proximity to beachfront property. A windfarm is proposed in Lake Michigan only 2 miles offshore (Danish law proscribes at least 7 km or 4 miles and preferably 12 km or 7 miles offshore). In addition to the view, there is no known impact of dredging on beaches, pile-driving on sound pollution or the flicker effect (when the blades of the turbines rotate in front of the sun, especially when it is setting)
Wind turbines in the middle of nowhere – like those erected by T. Boone Pickens in Texas or those planned in the Mojave Desert – may arguably have no impact on either tourism or property values. When they are erected too close to shore in primarily residential and recreational areas, including state and national parks, where the value of property is determined by views and use of pristine beaches, the impact is not known. Our small community on the shore of Lake Michigan is reluctant to volunteer to be the experiment for such projects.
Huh? How do you get that?
Suppose you were to install bike racks on a bunch of cars, some low-end and some high-end. And you do a before and after valuation of all these cars and find that on average the installation of the racks did not impact the values of the cars.
From that, how do you infer that the bike racks were installed only on the low-end cars???
Huh? Low-end? High-end? Cars?
Have you read the Property Value Impact studies?? They were not conducted in any communities that are dependent upon tourism for their economic well-being. They were essentially conducted in the middle of nowhere, which is where most US wind projects have been built.
Boating, swimming, fishing, surfing, walking on the beach, bird watching, visiting shoreline state parks and dunes, watching the sunset on the lake are some of the activities that bring tourists to West Michigan. There have been NO studies at all in the US on the impact of near-shore wind factory development on property values – or on lake ecology. Many people who live near the shore pay much higher property taxes than those who live away from the beach. Why do you suppose that is?
All that I can say is that if these machines were going in on the west (Portland) slope of mount hood instead of Sherman County we would be having a very different discussion… (aka. “viewshed”, environmental degradation, etc)
Have studies been conducted on off-shore windfarms in the US in locations that are valued for their views – or have studies been conducted only on land in rural America?
A wind farm is currently being considered for Lake Michigan one to three miles off the beach between Silver Lake and Ludington, Michigan. This is a beautiful stretch of sand beach populated by single family cottages, small towns that survive on summer tourist dollars, and a couple state parks. I agree with Joan, above, there is no way that property values will not be impacted. People live here and vacation here because of the great beach, the lovely lake, and the spectacular sunsets. All of that will be spoiled. Wind farms and green energy are great and much needed, but thought must go into where they should be located. Sure wind energy is green, but the build out of the project is messy and once in place it is nothing but another industrial power plant that we will have to look at for many years to come. People don’t go to the prairie of Texas or South Dakota and sit in a lawn chair and stare at the view for hours. But that is how you enjoy the Lake Michigan beach.
I was able to track down a couple studies done on the economic impact of offshore wind farms on property values/tourism and they generally concluded that Offshore wind farms have (or would have) a net positive impact on tourism. With relatively few actual cases to study, this is still a nascent field of study, but I’m sure more will work be done on the subject in the next few years.
1. Golubcow, Molly. “Tourism That Blows.” Atlantic City Weekly (August 9, 2006); “Manitoba’s First Wind Farm a
Tourism Hotspot.” (July 24, 2006): http://www.mb.gov.ca.
2. Roger J. Flynn and Robert T. Carey. “The Potential Economic Impact of an Off-Shore Wind Farm to the State of South Carolina” (February, 2007); Clemson University (www.clemson.edu/scies/wind/Paper-Flynn.pdf)
3.
Tim,the three proposed Atlantic City ‘wind farms’ are 10 sq miles each – not the 100-200 proposed in Lake Michigan. They will also be located 16 miles offshore – not the 2 – 3.7 miles proposed in Lake Michigan.
The Manitoba windfarm you cite is in the ‘rolling prairie’, a 90 minute drive from Winnepeg. In other words, in the middle of nowhere, not 2 miles offshore from residential property and public beaches. The question is whether large offshore windfarms in close proximity bathing beaches, fishing grounds, national parks and other areas used for recreation are an appropriate use of our lakes.
In the recent Department of Energy study undertaken by Ben Hoen and others, the small sample of only 67 homes within 3000 feet of wind turbines out of a total of 7,500 homes in the study leads to difficulty in obtaining a statistically meaningful conclusion about the value of homes within that circumference. Summarized in the abstract of that report is the statement: “Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact. In an email we received directly from Dr. Hoen, he confirms this problem by saying: “The results though, apply to the average value across all homes in that distance band rather than any single home, and each home is unique.” If the “…sound (at a single home) had a significant impact on one’s ability to live in peace there, then it would not be surprising if (the) home’s value would be adversely impacted. By how much is unclear though. It would likely have to do with the level, frequency, duration and time of day of the disturbance, all things that it seems you are measuring. And though, even with these quantifications, there is very little information as to how to apply them to changes in value.” The problem is like all applications of statistical conclusions to individual cases. It simply cannot be meaningfully applied. It is unfortunate that the industry continues to generalize and in so doing puts innumerable families who believe these generalizations at risk in terms of loss of property estate value as well as loss of quality of life. This study as well as others should add sufficient cautionary note so that they are not misused by the industry.
Fran- My bad, I got the link to that Manitoba piece in a study of offshore wind farm, I stand corrected.
There was, however, another study that I intended to find the link for but got distracted — it was from an offshore wind farm in Denmark… I’ll see if I can track down the link.
Tim, based on your responses I’m unclear as to where ecopolitology stands on offshore wind farm development, property values, proximity to shore, etc. Are you an advocacy site, a collection of reports and information or some combination of both? Are you connected with either the wind industry or green organizations? Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
After looking at your visualization of the proposed Aegir Project wind turbine farm in Lake Michigan…who, in their right mind, would ever think that 100 square miles of massive turbines would not detract from the view? It is obvious that the photos were taken on a gray, cloudy mid-winter day.
Superimpose the turbines onto photographs showing Michigan’s stunningly beautiful blue skies, water and everchanging technicolor sunsets then submit that photograph for approval to Michigan’s tourism and realtor boards!
The Lake Michigan panoramic view is priceless yet this project will have an ugly price tag attached to it should we all be so unfortunate as to allow it to proceed.
Green energy is necessary and wonderful but there is never an easy, quick fix to these issues. Go back to the drawing board and rework the entire proposal.
Better yet- place the turbines in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone Park or Niagra Falls!
Michigan’s one, true, lasting value is its natural beauty. Take that away with projects that may initially spur curiosity-seeker tourism, and what will be left is not beautiful… The lasting result will be the final nail in Michigan’s economic coffin. Tourism for Michigan along with the recreation industry has been the bright spot in Michigan’s future. Why would anyone want to condemn this state by hastily erecting wind farms that will kill birds (eagles have recently returned to the area), provide noise pollution that will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the environment, cause oil pollution in the very fragile great lakes system (through common leakage from turbines), not to mention visual contamination of a beautiful seashore. There will be a long term negative effect on property values that are within view and noise exposure to these gargantuan turbines. Is there a small group of individuals who will benefit from this proposal? and at what cost to all who enjoy Michigan’s natural environment? When there is so much at stake, it would be negligent to rush this proposal for wind farms within Lake Michigan.
Fran- I’ll take that as a compliment that you can’t determine our position on the issue, isn’t that a mark of good journalism? In response to your questions:
Are you an advocacy site?
We advocate on behalf of rational discussions about energy and environmental politics. We do not blindly advocate for anything, except for sound science, I suppose.
A collection of reports and information or some combination of both?
Ecopolitology is not a news aggregator. 99% of what we publish is original content, penned by a diverse and competent collection of journalists, green bloggers, policy experts and industry professionals. The remaining 1% of our content comes via content partnerships.
Are you connected with either the wind industry or green organizations?
We are not connected with the wind industry or any other green organizations. Ecopolitology is part of a for-profit environmental blog network called Live Oak Media that is dedicated to bringing fresh, thoughtful and critical news and analysis from wind farms to window boxes.
I hope this helps.
Fran, Nina, Emily, Pentwtr, et al in MI: I’m on the other side of the Great Lake Michigan and found your posts re: Lake MI wind farm interesting. Apparently, a radial wind farm is in the works for Mid-Lake Plateau east of Milwaukee, about 15 miles offshore. Looking at the bathymetry of Lake Michigan west and south of Ludington, I wonder why the turbines can’t be located further off-shore. Might that area be in shipping lanes?
Pentwtr, you’re right about the spectacular sunsets; except over here, they’re spectacular _sunrises_
Best of luck to you.
Doug, Fran, Nina, Pentwtr, others-
Thanks for your comments and concerns.
2 Public forum meetings have been scheduled to discuss the proposed Aegir Project (Scandia Wind Turbine Farm offshore Lake Michigan). Mid-January Michigan weather concerns aside- it would be great to have a large turnout!
January 18, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. Shelby HS, Shelby, MI
January 19, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. Ludington HS, Ludington, MI
Hopefully the Scandia company will have some answers to the many questions and concerns related to this project.
This project is certainly too immense to rush into with out adequate information. So, if it is truly viable- then several more years of research, planning and debate should not make any difference in the long term outcome.
Some additional interesting sites to investigate:
Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council
Detroit Free Press
Scandia Wind LLC
http://www.windaction.org/news/c53
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dil/article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/world/europe/14w
http://www.cphpost.dk/business/119/47022
http://www.betterplan.squarespace.com/todays-special/2
Thanks for the words of encouragement, Doug. As far as I can determine, the number one reason for putting the turbines close to shore is cost. The companies involved make more money if they don’t have to deal with deeper water. The governor’s guidelines are 6 miles offshore – hardly the 3.7 to 2 miles Scandia and Havgul are suggesting.
I see no comparison between the area studied in this report and the current Offshore Wind proposal in Lake Michigan. If turbines are located on otherwise bare landscapes they probably do not affect property values except for those immediately next door. However, the reason property values are where they are in the resort communities along this part of Lake Michigan is because of the beautiful natural resource called Lake Michigan. People buy second homes there for that reason and the local economies rely on this for their livelihoods. I don’t think we need a scientific study to tell us that not only would property values dive but the tourism industry would suffer a major collapse. As to the comment that it would increase tourism because people would come to see it?? They might drive through once to see what a mess they made of beautiful Lake Michigan and then they would drive on to other coastal spots on the Great Lakes and never come back. This project must be stopped and in order to do that we the opposition must come up with some hard data to support the impact on the areas property values and tourism industry to name a few.
The argument that a dominant horizon view of wind factories will not diminish real estate values is silly. I own a lake front cottage and know many others — all of whom are against a view of wind factories. That is more legitimate than a biased study by the DoE. Positive features that enhance real estate values are generally advertised. I can’t imagine a horizon dominated by a wind factory as being touted as a reason to buy.
Of course, this is not the main argument against wind factories in Lake Michigan. There are plenty of sound environmental and economic reasons for not locating a wind factory in Lake Michigan. As a start, see: http://www.windaction.org/.
Rick, what you call an “argument” is really a data-driven finding of the study. Perhaps the finding is invalid. If so, you can read the assumptions and the methods of the study and make a case for which of these is invalid.
Just because you and “many other” owners feel that your property value would get diminished in the presence of wind facilities is totally consistent with the results of this study. Let me explain. Suppose you own a car which you can sell for $10,000. Now assume someone comes along and paints your car red, a color you abhor. This does not necessarily mean that the value of your car has been diminished – it is still possible that you may be able to sell your car for $10,000 (or even higher). This is simply because someone else might love that color on your car and be willing to pay $11,000 for it. Or, the new color may not bother them at all and they are still willing to pay $10,000. Thus, even if you and other car owners all dislike the color red on your cars, they may or may not diminish in value, depending on whether others folks like that color on your car. If no one likes it, the car will certainly decrease in value. But it is just as possible that there are enough buyers for whom the color of your car is either not an issue, or who might actually prefer that color.
Again, just because you don’t like wind facilities doesn’t mean the whole world doesn’t like them as well.
I would think that the property values would increase, especially in cases where the laandowners are receiving lease payments from companies that own the windmills.
Great Post! This might be a little off topic but has anyone ever been to an island Boracay? Its like that movie The Beach with Leonardo Dicaprio!
I wonder if the same holds true for Homemade Windmills?
Just wondering because I would love to make one?