The Resilient Effect of Process on Perceived Fairness and Legitimacy in Wind Energy Siting

Research on energy siting conflict argues that high levels of local control and public input increase the perceived fairness of the permitting process. However, these studies largely rely on retrospective evaluations, meaning respondents may form their attitudes about procedural fairness and legitimacy based on whether they secure their preferred policy outcome. In contrast, I use experimental designs to randomly vary whether respondents learn the policy outcome prior to judging the permitting process. Across two pre-registered survey experiments, state control and limited public input decrease the perceived fairness and legitimacy of wind turbine siting. This relationship is unaltered by knowing the policy outcome. However, the resilient effect of these specific process on legitimacy is only around half the size as the effect of getting one's preferred policy outcome. Consequently, studies which measure public perceptions after siting may largely capture the effect of the outcome, rather than that of process alone.