Wind Power on the Brazilian Northeast Coast, from the Whiff of Hope to Turbulent Convergence: The Case of the Galinhos Wind Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction does not clearly inform the reader the purpose of the research undertaken by the authors and how the paper has been presented. Thus from a readers perspective, the reading becomes frustrating. 

There is no connection from one part to another. For example, how does Part 2 - The whiff of hope tie in with Part 3 - the methodology. 

Since the purpose of the research is not clearly explained, the reason for using the chosen methodology in Part 3 is also unclear. 

If the purpose of the study is to compare Ex-ante analysis to Ex-post analysis, then this should have been stated as the objective of the study. 

The paper does not conclude with a clear message. 

Overall, the paper is a little repetitive and the authors message in the conclusion is very general. 

The paper needs to be revised.  

Author Response

June 13th, 2019.

Title: Wind Power on the Brazilian Northeast coast, from the whiff of hope to turbulent convergence: The case of the Galinhos wind farms

Journal: MDPI Sustainability

Corrections of Manuscript

 

 

Authors: Eduardo Janser de Azevedo Dantas, Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, Neilton Fidelis da Silva and Marcio Giannini Pereira

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The introduction does not clearly inform the reader the purpose of the research undertaken by the authors and how the paper has been presented. Thus from a readers perspective, the reading becomes frustrating.

 

Response 1:  We consider the reviewer's comment important and we appreciate it. In fact, after careful reading, we realized that the text of the Introduction required more detail. We made motions in the text to make clear the purpose of the research. In the same way, we perceive the need to describe the parts that make up the article, with a brief description of each one. Thus, we include in section 1- Introduction the aspects we mentioned.

 

Modified text at line 85:

Text before:  “A case study was conducted based on the opposition movement created by the Galinhos inhabitants against wind farm implementation in this town and its surroundings.”

Text after:  “The objective of this article is to assess the process of wind energy implantation in the municipality of Galinhos, located on the coast of Northeast Brazil. It consists in a case study based on the reaction movement of the inhabitants of Galinhos to the arrival of wind farms in this town and its surroundings.”

 

Inserted text at line 95:

“The article is composed of six sections: 1. Introduction, with general information about the context of wind energy; 2. "The whiff of hope", which briefly describes the process of expanding wind energy in the world, and in Brazil in particular, with emphasis on the Northeast region; 3. Methodology, which describes the procedures used to delineate the study, namely the documentary research as a support to the ex-ante analysis of the movement of reaction of the residents to the arrival of the parks, and field research with the application of questionnaires with the population of Galinhos, six years after the implantation of the wind farms in the municipality, as a way to verify the materialization of the concerns and expectations of the residents due to the arrival of the wind farms; 4. "Ex-ante analysis: turbulent convergence", discusses reaction movements to the arrival of wind farms in the world and Brazil, characterizes Galinhos as the empirical field of research, identifies the perceptions of the agents involved, as residents, investors, public managers and judicial system, and finally regards studies on the socio-environmental issues in Galinhos and about that thems; 5. "Ex-post analysis: community perception after the consolidation of the wind farm", describes the field research developed and presents the results of the application of the questionnaires, in the technological, environmental, and socioeconomic and cultural dimensions; 6. Conclusions, summarizes the results of the ex-ante analysis and the ex-post diagnosis.”

 

Point 2: There is no connection from one part to another. For example, how does Part 2 - The whiff of hope tie in with Part 3 - the methodology.

 

Response 2: We understand the concern of the Reviewer as to the aspect of the connection between the sections. However, in our view, section 2. The whiff of hope brings together information that serves to contextualize the recent global expansion of wind energy in the world and in Brazil. This is a section that links to section 1. Introduction and brings the theme of wind power to the discussion. Section 3. Methodology, details the steps of the empirical study and describes the instruments used. This section has a strong link to section 4. Ex-ante analysis and section 5. Ex-post analysis, that are the core of the article. Sections 4. and 5. then link to section 3. and dialogue with each other in the discussion of results and conclusions.

 

Point 3: Since the purpose of the research is not clearly explained, the reason for using the chosen methodology in Part 3 is also unclear.

 

Response 3: We consider relevant the concern of the Revisor to clarify the aspects of the research design and to explain its objectives. We agree with this concern and, in fact, made changes in the text, with the intention to answer this question. We believe that what we did in Point 1 helps resolve the concerns in this Point 3.

 

Inserted paragraph at line 242:

“The ex-ante analysis sought to identify the concerns and expectations of residents of Galinhos, regarding the arrival of the wind farms to the municipality. It consisted of the analysis of the perceptions of residents, investors, public managers and agents of the judiciary, with the aggregation of results of studies done in the region and in the theme in question. The ex-post analysis, carried out six years after the installation of the wind farms, sought to identify in the aspects raised in the ex-ante analysis which materialized, and which did not. Table 3 below is a summary of perceptions prior to the installation of the wind farms and six years later, showing which narratives represented by the concerns and expectations confirmed or not. Intends to contribute with recommendations to better conduct investors and public managers in future energy use in similar conditions.”

 

Point 4: If the purpose of the study is to compare Ex-ante analysis to Ex-post analysis, then this should have been stated as the objective of the study.

 

Response 4: We agree with the reviewer's concern that the comparison between ex-ante and ex-post analyzes should be made explicit, and we note that this aspect is missing from the text. Thus, we included in section 3 - Methodology an additional paragraph that seeks to combine the two analyzes and point to Table 3, in section 5, which represents a synthesis table of ex-ante and ex-post perceptions. We believe that this improves understanding and adds that link in the text that it really did not have.

 

Point 5: The paper does not conclude with a clear message.

 

Response 5:  We agree with the reviewer's concern to make the text quite objective and appealing to future readers. This is also our concern. In section 6 - Conclusions, we present the synthesis of the results obtained in the ex-ante analysis and the synthesis of the results of the application of the questionnaires with the Galinhos' population. We hope that the results obtained in the study will serve as a guide for agents acting as identified in the research, so that energy utilization, especially wind power, can be implemented with the lowest socio-environmental impact and that the resulting economic return can reach the largest number of people.

 

Point 6: Overall, the paper is a little repetitive and the authors message in the conclusion is very general.

 

Response 6:  We consider important for the Reviewer to warn us about the attractiveness of the text to future readers. We try to follow the logic of chaining the text in order to make it more understandable and pleasant. We believe that the improvements that Reviewer 1 and the other Reviewers have suggested will make the text more interesting to read and discuss.

 

Point 7: The paper needs to be revised.

 

Response 7:  We consider very importantly the observations that the Reviewer presented. With this in mind, we make changes in the text to address the concerns and observations of the Reviewer. We greatly appreciate the contributions of the Reviewer, and we hope that the demands presented are met.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please review the attached draft of your paper with my comment balloons suggesting very minor revisions.  Given English is likely not the authors first language the paper has been written quite well in English but it does require a proof read to correct minor grammatical issues and language use problems.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and found it interesting and well structured.  The ex-ante and ex-post approach makes this a useful contribution regardless of the fact that the data gathered was quite localized and may not statistically support a more generalized contribution - although I would argue that many of the concerns raised ex-ante and the results found ex-post are consistent with findings from other locations globally.  Your sample size was sufficient enough to have undertaken some correlation and regression to statistically measure the association levels and potential causality of responses within the measured variables.  Without having more detail regarding the look of the survey it is difficult to explore those options further but it would be interesting to see if the difference in the demographics of your survey sample (mostly female, mostly older) from the actual community population (slightly more males than females, half under the age of 25) significantly correlated to the responses.  However, for a journal such as Sustainability, your approach in this paper is reasonable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

June 13th, 2019.

Title: Wind Power on the Brazilian Northeast coast, from the whiff of hope to turbulent convergence: The case of the Galinhos wind farms

Journal: MDPI Sustainability

Corrections of Manuscript

 

 

Authors: Eduardo Janser de Azevedo Dantas, Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, Neilton Fidelis da Silva and Marcio Giannini Pereira

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Please review the attached draft of your paper with my comment balloons suggesting very minor revisions

 

Response 1: We did the review and analyze each balloon with comments inserted by Reviewer 2. The following table reports the actions we did. The results are in the main text of the article.

 

Point 2: Given English is likely not the author’s first language the paper has been written quite well in English but it does require a proofread to correct minor grammatical issues and language use problems.

 

Response 2: The translation and review were performed by a native English speaker, British national, experienced translator and scientific researcher as requested by the Reviewer.

 

Point 3: I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and found it interesting and well structured.

 

Response 3: We appreciate the compliment. The consideration that does not imply a change in the text.

 

Point 4: The ex-ante and ex-post approach makes this a useful contribution regardless of the fact that the data gathered was quite localized and may not statistically support a more generalized contribution - although I would argue that many of the concerns raised ex-ante and the results found ex-post are consistent with findings from other locations globally.

 

Response 4: These considerations are relevant. Considering that the article is part of ongoing doctoral research, such considerations will be incorporated into the next steps of the research, and the articles that derive from it. We reaffirm here that the case study of Galinhos has its peculiarities. However, the conclusions drawn have been observed in other communities.

 

Point 5: Your sample size was sufficient enough to have undertaken some correlation and regression to statistically measure the association levels and potential causality of responses within the measured variables.  Without having more detail regarding the look of the survey it is difficult to explore those options further but it would be interesting to see if the difference in the demographics of your survey sample (mostly female, mostly older) from the actual community population (slightly more males than females, half under the age of 25) significantly correlated to the responses. However, for a journal such as Sustainability, your approach in this paper is reasonable.

 

Response 5: These considerations are relevant. Considering that the article is part of ongoing doctoral research, such considerations will be incorporated into the next steps of the research, and the articles that derive from it.

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 peer-review-4369681.v1.pdf file comments

 

In consideration of the comments/suggestions presented by Revisor 2, we present our actions:

 

Revisor Comment: Add a line here as to what percentage of the total electricity demand in Brazil this would represent and please add what the current electricity generation sources are and identify the amount GW or TW and what percentage of the total they represent.  Perhaps a table would work better

Authors’ response

Text inserted at line 53:

“With 164 GW of installed capacity at the end of 2018, the Brazilian electrical matrix is predominantly hydroelectric - 60.3% - with thermoelectric 24.5%, wind power 9.1%, and other 6.1%. In an eventual use of all the Brazilian wind potential presented in Atlas, this would account for 90% of all installed capacity. In terms of energy supply, taking as reference the year 2018, in which the national electric system offered 535 TWh, this use would account for 51%.”

 

Revisor Comment:  There are lots of innovative solutions but they are not viable, either economically, environmentally or socially so please change this sentence to read "in a world lacking viable innovative solutions for its clean energy needs"

Authors’ response

Modified text at line 139:

Text before:  “lacking innovative solutions for its energy needs, wind power technology is inserted”

Text after:  “where many innovative solutions are economically, environmentally or socially unviable as alternative energy, wind power technology is inserted”

 

Revisor Comment:  It would be very beneficial to the reader if you were to provide some type of map that highlights the location of the existing wind power capacity.

Authors’ response

Inserted text at line 177:  “Figure 3 shows the distribution of wind farms in Brazil by geographic region.”

 

Revisor Comment:  Discussion on this point is lacking in your paper and should really be addressed more fully.

Authors’ response

Inserted paragraphs at line 179, from observations at line 708:

“The infrastructure resulting from the wind farms under study consists of access roads for their construction and maintenance, which does not allow them to be considered a benefit to the community, despite the use by some residents.

It is planned to install a water desalination equipment for the treatment and supply of drinking water to the residents, planned for 60 l per day per family, resulting from the negotiation between the owners of the parks and the community, as a socio-environmental counterpart. to the issues raised by it.“

 

Revisor Comment: I think it is unfair to represent that a socio-environmental impact discussion did not take place.  It is fairer to use this language "A market logic prevailed, while the lack of any detailed discussion over the actual socio-environmental impacts essentially rendered those impacts invisible."

Authors’ response

Modified text at line 544:

Text before:  “while a discussion over the actual socio-environmental impacts essentially rendered those impacts became invisible.”

Text after:  “while the lack of any detailed discussion over the actual socio-environmental impacts essentially rendered those impacts invisible.”

 

Revisor Comment:  You have used the word "thus" too often in this section.  May I suggest you use the word "Therefore" instead?

Authors’ response

Modified text at line 561:

Removed text:  “Thus”

Inserted text:  “Therefore”

 

Revisor Comment:  There is literature that confirms the importance of the role that an independent knowledge broker can serve because of what you identify here.  I would suggest you consider making reference to the role of knowledge brokers in a previous Sustainability journal issue (Jami, A., & Walsh, P. (2016). Wind power deployment: The role of public participation in the decision-making process in Ontario, Canada. Sustainability, 8(8), 713.)

Authors’ response

Inserted text at line 678:  “For collaborative decision-making,  Jami recommends the presence of a knowledge-broker, which represents a third party with knowledge, enabling it to facilitate conversation on issues of dialogue between the parties involved in the conflict, supported by socio-scientific knowledge [77].”

 

Revisor Comment:  You do note that there were a number of jobs created to construct the projects but only 5 jobs created that remained in the community so a fairer observation would be "Full-time employment rates did not change significantly"

Authors’ response

Modified text at line 737:  “Full-time employment”

 

Revisor Comment:  Discussion on this point is lacking in your paper and should really be addressed more fully.

Authors’ response

Modified text at line 737:

Text before:  “Open roads are used by a significant part of the population;”

Text after:  “Open roads are used in the construction and maintenance of the wind farms, with possible uses by a community outside Galinhos – family, friends, and visitors.”

 

Removed item:  “Complaints regarding the non compensation in the electric power bills.”

 

Revisor Comment:  Discussion on this point is lacking in your paper and should really be addressed more fully.

Authors’ response

Modified text at line 737:

 

Revisor Comment:  “Your paper supports the argument that the impact can be seen as benign to the local community even though the driver for wind is about improving national interests in sustainable energy development.  I would recommend you revise this to say "contributed to local sustainable development"

Authors’ response

Inserted text at line 771:  “local”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors should write their sentences in the active voice rather than the passive voice.

The language and tone used in section 2 shows the authors' bias against wind power which weaken the valid social, economical and environmental concerns raised in the rest of the article.

The section on investor reactions serves little purpose other than to paint a picture of good vs bad and further strengthen the sense of the authors' bias against wind power. It would be better to present and analyze documented actions taken, or not taken by the consortium in response to community concerns.

The survey questions were not well designed. There were some leading questions such as "Does wind farm cause environmental damage" which were worded in a negative tone which could sway respondents against wind power. It should have been phrased in a neutral manner - e.g. How do you think the wind farm has affected the local environment?

The survey results indicate the community thought that the number of jobs have increased, but the authors seem to discredit this by claiming this is due to the construction period and that only 5 residents were employed directly because of the wind farm. However, the survey was conducted six years after the wind farm began operations, so the authors' claim that the increase in jobs was temporarily due to construction needs further clarification.

Author Response

June 13th, 2019.

Title: Wind Power on the Brazilian Northeast coast, from the whiff of hope to turbulent convergence: The case of the Galinhos wind farms

Journal: MDPI Sustainability

Corrections of Manuscript

 

 

Authors: Eduardo Janser de Azevedo Dantas, Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, Neilton Fidelis da Silva and Marcio Giannini Pereira

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The authors should write their sentences in the active voice rather than the passive voice.

 

Response 1: We consider important the observation made by Reviewer 3, since it makes the text more adequate. The authors did a review, seeking to change cases of text expressed in the passive voice.

 

Modified text at line 85:

Text before:  “A case study was conducted based on the opposition movement created by the Galinhos inhabitants against wind farm implementation in this town and its surroundings.”

Text after:  “The objective of this article is to assess the process of wind energy implantation in the municipality of Galinhos, located on the coast of Northeast Brazil. It consists in a case study based on the reaction movement of the inhabitants of Galinhos to the arrival of wind farms in this town and its surroundings.”

 

Modified text at line 392:

Text before:  “Residents were surprised by the wind farm implementation proposal”

Text after:  “The wind farm implementation proposal surprised the residents”

 

Modified text at line 412:

Text before:  “In this document, the population’s concerns were exposed”

Text after:  “This document exposed the population’s concerns”

 

Modified text at line 514:

Text before:  “the action was transferred to the Federal Justice scope,”

Text after:  “the Federal Justice assumed the action,”

 

Modified text at line 629:

Text before:  “where a wind farm was installed”

Text after:  “with a wind farm installed”

 

Modified text at line 637:

Text before:  “In an ethnographic study, carried out with the inhabitants of Galinhos, aspects related to local affectivity and identity were analyzed,”

Text after:  “An ethnographic study, carried out with the inhabitants of Galinhos, analyzed aspects related to local affectivity and identity,”

 

Modified text at line 758:

Text before:  “there were no significant interferences in the dynamics of local tourism and trade;”

Text after:  “the dynamics of local tourism and trade had no significant interferences;”

 

 

Point 2: The language and tone used in section 2 shows the authors' bias against wind power which weaken the valid social, economical and environmental concerns raised in the rest of the article.

 

Response 2: We consider important the observation made by Reviewer 3. We understand that the Revisor's considerations refer to the item 4 “Ex-ante analysis: The turbulent convergence”, since item 2 “The whiff of hope" is introductory, with the aim of presenting more comprehensive information on the course of the adoption of wind energy.

We reaffirm that it is not the intention of the authors to lead any prejudice against wind power. The analyzes and reflections presented in the item are supported by several published scientific articles and by researches done by these or other authors. However, this potential bias may be the result of the translation process. In order to reduce or eliminate any intensification leading to perceived bias, we did a review of the text, as the Reviewer can verify.

 

Modified text at line 251:

Text before:  “Ideas favorable to wind power expansion are already revealing conflicts arising from multiple interests, not always convergent on the part of its stakeholders. Such adherence, supported by Bauman [25] denotes a constructed consensus, where common sense determines the truth and gives wind power technology a positive character, a whiff of hope capable, as if this were possible, to harmoniously equate divergent interests”

Text after:  “Ideas favorable to wind power expansion register some conflicts arising from multiple interests, on the part of its stakeholders. Those ideas, supported by what Bauman [25] denotes a constructed consensus, where common sense adopts the truth and gives wind power technology a positive character, a whiff of hope with potential to harmoniously equate divergent interests.”

 

Modified text at line 257:

Text before:  “This convergent narrative requires investigation as to its coherence and the perceptions of communities settled near such undertakings. These populations are always invisible during the design, installation and operation processes, since in the case of the Brazilian Northeast, with emphasis on the RN, they occupy areas marked by low socio-economic development.”

Text after:  “This convergent narrative requires investigation as to its coherence and the perceptions of communities settled near such undertakings. These populations are often invisible during the design, installation and operation processes, as the case of the Brazilian Northeast, with emphasis on the RN, who occupy areas marked by low socio-economic development.”

 

Modified text at line 265:

Text before:  “always the communities’ reactions is not peaceful acceptance.”

Text after:  “harmonious acceptance may not ocurr.”

 

Removed text at line 270:  “leaving latent dissatisfaction.”

 

Modified text at line 277:

Text before:  “faced rejection by residents”

Text after:  “faced opposition by residents”

Modified text at line 282:

Text before:  “wind quality did not contribute to improve the population’s”

Text after:  “wind quality, contributed little to improve the population’s”

 

Modified text at line 286:

Text before:  “which currently still denounce the authoritarian and excluding nature of the implementation process in the region “

Text after:  “ which still resist, denouncing the implementation process in the region”

 

Removed text at line 430: “not necessarily aligned with the community’s demands.”

 

Inserted text at line 438:  “local”

 

Point 3: The section on investor reactions serves little purpose other than to paint a picture of good vs bad and further strengthen the sense of the authors' bias against wind power. It would be better to present and analyze documented actions taken, or not taken by the consortium in response to community concerns.

 

Response 3: We understand the concerns displayed by the Reviewer. However, we emphasize that the area of study has low socioeconomic development, and specifically in the region of Galinhos, the community only became aware of the existence of the wind farm when the installation was almost beginning, once the environmental licensing process for wind farms in Brazil is simplified. The investor consortium started from the understanding that, in the area of dunes, there was no community to consider. However, as way to eliminate any perception regarding the authors' point of view, we did a review of the text.

 

Point 4: The survey questions were not well designed. There were some leading questions such as "Does wind farm cause environmental damage" which were worded in a negative tone which could sway respondents against wind power. It should have been phrased in a neutral manner - e.g. How do you think the wind farm has affected the local environment?

 

Response 4: The observation is quite pertinent. This understanding that questions stem from a negative view of wind energy results from difficulties in translation. In this case, the question "Does the park cause environmental damage?" Has its intention in the way it was done in Portuguese, in greater approximation with the way it was suggested by the Reviewer.

 

Point 5: The survey results indicate the community thought that the number of jobs have increased, but the authors seem to discredit this by claiming this is due to the construction period and that only 5 residents were employed directly because of the wind farm. However, the survey was conducted six years after the wind farm began operations, so the authors' claim that the increase in jobs was temporarily due to construction needs further clarification.

 

Response 5:

This is a relevant concern by the reviewer, because, according to the results of the survey, 64% of the respondents reported perception of changes in the level of jobs due to the wind farm - Figure 7, line 705 -. However, this perception does not materialize with the concrete situation of the existence of only 05 jobs today, according to reports of several respondents. Therefore, we were led to conclude that this perception goes back to the period of construction of the wind farm, in which some people from the municipality worked there, but not nowadays so much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper now conveys the message much better.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the contributions you made that greatly contributed to a better presentation and understanding of the objectives and evaluations of the article.

Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

I still have major reservations regarding the direction and scope of the article. From my understanding, the authors aimed to prove whether the residents' concerns were actually realized by conducting surveys and field research. However, make solid conclusions on economic impact requires some degree of data collection and analysis. There is little description of the economic data they collected other than noting that there were 5 residents employed directly by the wind farm. The authors also attempted to analyze environmental concerns such as loss of biodiversity and damage to local fauna which would take quite a large effort to study and quantify. 

I am not saying that the authors should provide extensive biological and economic data to support their conclusions. I understand that would be difficult given the scope of their methods. That is why I think the conclusion should just be a comparison of community sentiment towards the wind farm before and after its construction.

Relying on survey results and very limited data to make definitive statements on the actual positive and negative impacts of the wind farm does not make for a strong argument. I believe there is a lot of value in focusing on the before and after differences in the perception of the community towards the wind farm. The smaller scope would make for a much more focused paper with stronger, and clearer conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Regarding your remarks, we made a new reading more focused on your last considerations.

We considered that it was necessary, according to the suggestions, to make it clear that the statements presented were based on the concerns of the residents. They were a comparison between perceptions about the expectations that emerged in the face of the arrival of the projects, as well as the reality established after six years of wind farms operations, both for their novelty and for their socio-economic and environmental appeals.

In order to resolve possible interpretations outside the scope of the research, regarding the perceptions of the economic and environmental impacts presented, we made modifications in the text, as described below.

Regards,

Authors

_________________________________________________

Item 5.2.3. Socioeconomic and cultural dimension – The wind farm and its consequences

Inserted text:

Socioeconomic evaluation of an enterprise with the size of the wind farms under study requires the knowledge and processing of data and indicators that surpass the declared objectives of the research.

The interviews, therefore, aimed at revealing ex-ante and ex-post expectations and concerns by the community and showed that 57% of the respondents have the feeling that the number of jobs in the municipality increased. However, this possible increase was most likely linked to the period of construction of the wind farms, which temporarily requires a large number of workers. Traldi [39] points out that there is no guarantee of the employability of the local labor force since it demanded more intensely labor of workers with specific skills and competencies for the civil construction, which are not always available in the region. Once the construction finishes and the wind power generators are in motion, the number of jobs greatly reduces, and those required for the operation of the wind farms require professionals with greater expertise. In the case of the Galinhos wind farms, the survey registered the occupation of only 05 inhabitants of the municipality in functions of monitoring and maintenance of the internal roads.

 

Item 5.2.3. Socioeconomic and cultural dimension – The wind farm and its consequences

Removed text:

Regarding job creation, 57% of the respondents indicates that the number of jobs increased. However, this is possibly linked to the construction period, which temporarily requires a high number of workers. Traldi [39] points out that there is no guarantee that local labor force will be employed, since skilled workers are required for the construction, who are not always available in the region. Once the construction is completed and the wind power generators are in motion, only five Galinhos residents were registered, in charge of monitoring and maintaining the internal roads.

Item 6. Conclusions – 1^st paragraph

Inserted text:

The narrative that supports the expansion of wind farms grounds, in large part, on the argument that they promote sustainable development. However, such convergent ideas become fragile by the register of reactions originating in the receiving communities of these enterprises. These movements fear that the installation of wind farms could lead to situations of environmental, cultural, and socio-economic damages, in this case in poor and traditional communities.

Item 6. Conclusions– 1^st paragraph

Removed text:

The narrative that supports the expansion of wind farms is strongly reinforced by the argument that they promote sustainable development. However, this convergent idea is shaken by the record of an opposition coming from popular-community origins, which argues and defends a thesis that the installation of wind farms can lead to situations of socio-economic, environmental, and cultural degradation in poor and traditional communities.

Item 6. Conclusions – 2^nd and 3^rd paragraph

Modified text:

        The ex-ante analysis of the various actors in the community reaction to the wind farms in Galinhos allows for the conclusion, concerning investor behavior, a reaction directed to disqualify the community social movement from a logic that minimizes indications of social and environmental damages. As for the government, the study found the dissent among different environmental agencies, unprepared managers to face relevant environmental issues, and susceptibility to pressure from economic interests. Regarding for the Judiciary, the strong attachment to formal aspects of the law gave the impression that another interpretation would be possible, if some evidence of socio-environmental damages in the area had been considered. About the socio-environmental studies presented herein, it is clear that knowledge regarding the region already exists, which can contribute to better decisions made by governmental agents.

        From the ex-post analysis, it is possible to conclude, from the perceptions expressed by the community, that: i) the assessed wind farms did not promote local long term job creation and higher income in the communities in its surroundings; ii) the dynamics of local tourism and trade had no significant interferences;

Item 6. Conclusions – 2^nd and 3^rd paragraph

Original text:

       The ex-ante analysis of the various actors in the community reaction to the wind farms in Galinhos allows for the conclusion, concerning investor behavior, a reaction directed to disqualify the community social movement using a logic that minimizes indications of social and environmental damages. As for the government, the dissent among different environmental agencies was evident, managers were unprepared to face relevant environmental issues and presented susceptibility to pressure from economic interests. Regarding for the Judiciary, the strong attachment to formal aspects of the law gave the impression that another interpretation would be possible, if some evidence of socio-environmental damages in the area had been considered. From the socio-environmental studies presented herein, it is clear that knowledge regarding the region already exists, which can contribute to better decisions made by governmental agents.

       From the ex-post analysis, it is possible to conclude that: i) the assessed wind farms confirm the assumption that they do not promote job creation and higher income in the communities in its surroundings; ii) there were no significant interferences in the dynamics of local tourism and trade;

___________________________________________

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Satisfied with the changes made in the latest manuscript.