Spatial analyses of emerging and fading wind energy landscapes in Denmark

Land Use Policy

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 233-241

  Möller, Bernd ^a  

^a AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

GIS; Landscape; Planning; Public acceptance; Visual impact; Wind energy

Indexed keywords

GIS; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; WIND FARM; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINE; ZONING POLICY;

DENMARK; EURASIA; EUROPE; JUTLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 70449672466     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Agnolucci P. Wind electricity in Denmark: a survey of policies, their effectiveness and factors motivating their introduction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 5 (2007) 951-963
2. Bishop I.D., and Miller D.R. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renewable Energy 32 5 (2007) 814-831
3. Danish Energy Agency, 2008. Available from: http://www.ens.dk.
4. de Smith M.J., Goodchild M.F., and Longley P.A. Geospatial Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Techniques and Software Tools. 2nd edition (2007), Matador, Leichester
5. EMD, 2008. Wind resource map for Denmark. Available from: http://www.emd.dk.
6. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33 13 (2005) 1677-1689
7. Hoogwijk M., de Vries B., and Turkenburg W. Assessment of the global and regional geographical, technical and economic potential of onshore wind energy. Energy Economics 26 5 (2004) 889-919
8. Hurtado J.P., Fernandez J., Parrondo J.L., and Blanco E. Spanish method of visual impact evaluation in wind farms. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8 (2003) 483-491
9. Hvelplund F. Renewable energy and the need for local energy markets. Energy 31 13 (2006) 2293-2302
10. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2008. World Energy Outlook 2008 Edition. Paris.
11. KMS, 2008. Danish national survey and cadastre. Available from: http://www.kms.dk.
12. Krohn S., and Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 16 1-4 (1999) 954-960
13. Ladenburg J. Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy. Renewable Energy 33 1 (2008) 111-118
14. Mclaren Loring J. Wind energy planning in England Wales and Denmark: factors influencing project success. Energy Policy 35 4 (2007) 2648-2660
15. Möller B. Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in Northern Jutland Denmark. Applied Energy 83 5 (2006) 477-494
16. Pasqualetti M.J. Morality, space, and the power of wind-energy landscapes. Geographical Review 90 3 (2000) 381-394
17. Shang H., and Bishop I.D. Visual thresholds for detection, recognition and visual impact in landscape settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 2 (2000) 125-140
18. Sovacool B.K., Lindboe H.H., and Odgaard O. Is the Danish wind energy model replicable for other countries?. The Electricity Journal 21 2 (2008) 27-38
19. Statistics Denmark, 2008. Available from: http://www.dst.dk.
20. Tobler W.R. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 46 2 (1970) 234-240
21. Toke D. Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales. Energy Policy 33 12 (2005) 1527-1539
22. Tsoutsos T., Tsouchlaraki A., Tsiropoulos M., and Serpetsidakis M. Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island. Applied Energy 86 (2009) 546-553
23. Van der horst D. Nimby or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35 5 (2007) 2705-2714
24. Warren C.R., Lumsden C., O'dowd S., and Birnie R.V. 'Green on green': public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48 6 (2005) 853-875
25. Wolsink M. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35 5 (2007) 2692-2704