Wind turbines location: How many and how far?

Applied Energy

Volumn 151, Issue , 2015, Pages 23-31

  Betakova, Vendula ^a   Vojar, Jiri ^a   Sklenicka, Petr ^a  

^a CZECH UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Landscape quality; Renewable energy planning; Visual impact; Visual preference; Wind power

Indexed keywords

WIND POWER; WIND TURBINES;

AESTHETIC QUALITIES; CUMULATIVE EFFECTS; OBSERVATION POINT; RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANNING; RESIDENTIAL BUILDING; THRESHOLD DISTANCES; VISUAL IMPACTS; VISUAL PREFERENCE;

QUALITY CONTROL;

ENERGY PLANNING; ESTHETICS; PHOTOGRAPH; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; WIND FARM; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINE;

EID: 84928574955     PISSN: 03062619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.060     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Drewitt A.L., Langston R.H.W. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 2006, 148:29-42.
2. King E.A., Pilla F., Mahon J. Assessing noise from wind farms developments in Ireland: a consideration of critical wind speeds and turbine choice. Energy Policy 2012, 41:548-560.
3. Molnarova K., Sklenicka P., Stiborek P., Svobodova K., Salek M., Brabec E. Visual preferences for wind turbines: location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Appl Energy 2012, 92:269-278.
4. Ladenburg J., Termansen M., Hasler B. Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: a test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines. Energy 2013, 54:45-54.
5. Ladenburg J. Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience. Appl Energy 2009, 86:380-387.
6. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 2000, 21:49-64.
7. Bell D., Gray T., Haggett C. The, "social gap" in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 2005, 14:460-477.
8. Devine-Wright P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environ 2005, 10:57-69.
9. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1677-1689.
10. Petrova M.A. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev Clim Change 2013, 4:575-601.
11. Zoellner J., Schweizer-Ries P., Wemheuer C. Public acceptance of renewable energies: results of case studies from Germany. Energy Policy 2008, 36:4136-4141.
12. Swofford J., Slattery M. Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 2010, 38:2508-2519.
13. Meyerhoff J. Do turbines in the vicinity of respondentś residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?. J Choice Modell 2013, 7:58-71.
14. Drechsler M., Ohl C., Meyerhoff J., Eichhorn M., Monsees J. Combining spatial modeling and choice experiments for the optimal spatial allocation of wind turbines. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3845-3854.
15. Ek K., Persson L. Wind turbines - where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden. Ecol Econ 2014, 105:193-203.
16. Warren C.R., Lumsden C., O'Dowd S., Birnie R.V. 'Green on green': public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J Environ Planning Manage 2005, 48:853-875.
17. Ladenburg J., Dahlgaard J. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects on the daily wind-turbine encounters. Appl Energy 2012, 98:40-46.
18. Moller B. Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Appl Energy 2006, 83:477-494.
19. Lothian A. Scenic perceptions of the visual effects of wind farms on South Australian landscapes. Geogr Res 2008, 46:196-207.
20. Vries S., Groot M., Boers J. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann 2012, 105:118-127.
21. Bishop I.D. Determination of thresholds of visual impact: the case of wind turbines. Environ. Plann. B Plann. Des. 2002, 29:707-718.
22. Vorel I., Bukacek R., Matejka P., Culek M., Sklenicka P. A method for assessing the visual impact on landscape character of proposed construction, activities or changes in land use (a method for spatial and character differentiation of an area) 2006, Centre for Landscape, Prague.
23. Molina-Ruiz J., Martinez-Sanchez M.J., Perez-Sirvent C., Tudela_serrano M.L., Garcia Lorenzo M.L. Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to evaluate visual impact in wind turbines. Renewable Energy 2011, 36:1125-1132.
24. Moller B., Hong L., Lonsing R., Hvelplund F. Evaluation of offshore wind resources by scale of development. Energy 2012, 48:314-322.
25. Manchado C., Otero C., Gomez-Jauregui V., Arias R., Bruschi V., Cendrero A. Visibility analysis and visibility software for the optimisation of wind farm design. Renewable Energy 2013, 60:388-401.
26. Kaldellis J.K. Evaluation of Greek wind parks visual impact, public attitude and experts' opinion. Fresenius Environ Bull 2006, 15:1419-1426.
27. Wolsink M. Planning for renewable schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of noncooperation. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2692-2704.
28. Lothian A. Visual impact assessment of wind farms in South Australia. New Zealand Association for Impact Assessment Conference; 2006.
29. Svobodova K., Sklenicka P., Molnarova K., Vojar J. Does the composition of landscape photographs affect visual preferences? The rule of the golden section and the position of the horizon. J Environ Psychol 2014, 38:143-152.
30. Frantal B., Kunc J. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes, Czech experience. Ann Tourism Res 2010, 38:499-519.
31. Sklenicka P. Evaluation of possibilities for location of wind turbines and other vertical structures in Frydlant, Hradec and Chrastava districts (Liberec region) from the aspect of nature and landscape protection; 2005.
32. Crawley M.J. The R book 2007, Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
33. R Development Core Team 2009: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
34. Tsoutsos T., Tsouchlaraki A., Tsiropulos M., Serpetsidakis M. Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island. Appl Energy 2009, 86:546-553.
35. Del Carmen Torres Sibille A., Cloquell-Ballester V.A., Cloquell-Ballester V.A., Darton R. Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009, 13:40-66.
36. Bishop I.D., Miller D.R. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renewable Energy 2007, 32:814-831.
37. Jones C.R., Orr B.J., Eiser J.R. When is enough, enough? Identifying predictors of capacity estimates for onshore wind-power development in the region of the UK. Energy Policy 2011, 39:4563-4577.