A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 303-315

  Corry, Robert C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Environmental screening; Green energy; Ontario; Transmission lines; Visual simulation; Wind turbines

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; PHOTOGRAPHY; VISUALIZATION; WIND FARM; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINE;

CANADA; ONTARIO [CANADA];

EID: 84455174912     PISSN: 14615517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/146155111X12959673796047     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bishop, I D 2002. Determination of thresholds of visual impact: the case of wind turbines. Environment and Planning B - Planning & Design, 29(5), 707-718.
2. Bishop, I D and D R Miller 2007. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renewable Energy, 32(5), 814-831.
3. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects - National Research Council 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
4. County of Bruce Planning & Economic Development Department 2005. Application Requirements for Commercial Wind Energy (Turbine) Facilities. Walkerton, Ontario: County of Bruce.
5. Dillon Consulting Limited 2009. McLean's Mountain Wind Farm Environmental Screening Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Toronto, Ontario.
6. Gipe, P 2002. Design as if people matter: aesthetic guidelines for a wind power future. In Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World, ed. M J Pasqualetti, P Gipe and R W Righter, pp. 173-212. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
7. Gipe, P 2003. British lessons to avoid anti-wind conflict - a best practice guide. WindStats, windstats.com, 16, 7-9.
8. Horner + Maclennan and Envision 2005. Visual Analysis of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance. Inverness, Scotland: Scottish Natural Heritage, The Scottish Renewables Forum, Scottish Society of Directors of Planning.
9. Klick, H and E Smith 2010. Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States. Renewable Energy, 35(7), 1585-1591.
10. Krohn, S and S Damborg 1999. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy, 16(1-4), 954-960.
11. Lewis, G M 2008. High value wind: a method to explore the relationship between wind speed and electricity locational marginal price. Renewable Energy, 33(8), 1843-1853.
12. Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 24 November 2009. Ontario's Green Energy Act: Our Path to a Green Economy and a Cleaner Environment. Available at http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/gea/, last accessed 21 October 2010.
13. Sheppard, S R J 1989. Visual Simulation: A User's Guide for Architects, Engineers, and Planners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
14. Smardon, R C and J Karp 1993. The Legal Landscape: Guidelines for Regulating Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
15. Taylor, J R, R C Corry, S Hall and L Balcerek 2006. Landscape and Visual Assessment Guidance for Wind Energy Facilities. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph: 83.
16. The Landscape Institute: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. New York: Spon Press.
17. University of Newcastle 2002. Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice. Edinburgh: University of Newcastle.
18. USDA Forest Service 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
19. Windpro 2008. Windpro. Available at http://www.windpro.com, last accessed 18 June 2010.
20. Wood, G 2000. Is what you see what you get? Post-development auditing of methods used for predicting the zone of visual influence in EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(5), 537-336.