Forming and Informing Perceptions of Controversial Environmental Topics: “How do local landholders in the Finnish Archipelago form and inform their perceptions of wind turbines and their impacts on the white-tailed eagle?”

While the impacts of wind turbines on large raptor populations have been researched extensively (with conflicting results), less is known about how the perceptions of these potential impacts are formed, a topic with implications spanning the human-environmental nexus. Using a case study in the Finnish archipelago, this research addresses how landholders form and inform their perceptions of wind turbines and their impacts on the white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and surrounding ecosystem. Our team conducted research across three islands, one with wind turbines (Högsåra: N=9) and two without (Attu: N=9, Sorpo: N=12). Thirty randomly selected landholders participated in semi-structured interviews. Questions covered perceptions of the eagles and wind turbines, the forms of media participants relied on, and how they chose whether to trust or distrust relevant information sources. Results demonstrated that most landholders have positive affect toward white-tailed eagles and are fairly evenly split regarding wind turbines. In addition, support or opposition of the turbines appears to be independent of the belief that turbines negatively impact the eagles and is instead predominantly driven by “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) tendencies. When sourcing information, participants tend to trust government-sponsored over industry-sponsored articles, though their opinions often align with the messages published in both. Finally, the research indicated that individual landowners in Finland can hold conflicting opinions despite cognitive dissonance. This case study provides in-depth, rich qualitative data that serves as an insightful addition to reflect similar research regarding human-environmental interactions regarding controversial environmental topics not only in Finland, but across the Western world.

(245 words)