WindNet: Improving the impact assessment of wind power projects

Christopher R. Jones; Eckart Lange; Jian Kang; Aki Tsuchiya; Robert Howell; Aidan While; Richard J. Crisp; John Steel; Keelan Meade; Fei Qu; Danial Sturge; Agnes Bray; Christopher R. Jones; Eckart Lange; Jian Kang; Aki Tsuchiya; Robert Howell; Aidan While; Richard J. Crisp; John Steel; Keelan Meade; Fei Qu; Danial Sturge; Agnes Bray

doi:10.3934/energy.2014.4.461

AIMS Energy

2014, Volume 2, Issue 4: 461-484. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.4.461

Previous Article Next Article

Communication Special Issues

WindNet: Improving the impact assessment of wind power projects

1.
Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TP, UK;
2.
Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK;
3.
School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK;
4.
School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK;
5.
Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DT, UK;
6.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK;
7.
Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK;
8.
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK;
9.
Department of Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DT, UK

Received: 01 October 2014 Accepted: 05 December 2014 Published: 14 December 2014

Growing international demand for renewable energy has led to rapid growth in the wind power sector and wind farms are becoming an increasingly common feature of landscapes and seascapes in many countries. However, as the most appropriate locations within established markets are taken up, and as wind power penetrates new markets, there is an increasing likelihood that proposed projects will encroach on sensitive landscapes and residential areas. This will present challenges for the industry, particularly due to the impact that public opinion can have upon the outcomes of planning decisions about specific projects. This article introduces the four key dimensions of the WindNet programme, which are helping to elucidate some of the socio-technical debates that will likely shape the future of the wind power sector. The article outlines studies investigating (1) public responses to cumulative landscape and visual impacts, (2) the auditory impact of wind power projects on human health, (3) the science of wind farm design and its implications for planning, and (4) the relevance of the democratic deficit explanation of the so-called "social gap" in wind farm siting. The outcomes of the research being conducted by WindNet stand to help reduce uncertainty within the planning process and assist in providing a more comprehensive and fairer assessment of the possible impacts associated with wind power project development.
- wind power,
- environmental impact assessment,
- planning,
- public acceptance,
- cumulative effects assessment,
- visual impact,
- noise impact,
- health and wellbeing
Citation: Christopher R. Jones, Eckart Lange, Jian Kang, Aki Tsuchiya, Robert Howell, Aidan While, Richard J. Crisp, John Steel, Keelan Meade, Fei Qu, Danial Sturge, Agnes Bray. WindNet: Improving the impact assessment of wind power projects[J]. AIMS Energy, 2014, 2(4): 461-484. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.4.461

Related Papers:

Abstract

Growing international demand for renewable energy has led to rapid growth in the wind power sector and wind farms are becoming an increasingly common feature of landscapes and seascapes in many countries. However, as the most appropriate locations within established markets are taken up, and as wind power penetrates new markets, there is an increasing likelihood that proposed projects will encroach on sensitive landscapes and residential areas. This will present challenges for the industry, particularly due to the impact that public opinion can have upon the outcomes of planning decisions about specific projects. This article introduces the four key dimensions of the WindNet programme, which are helping to elucidate some of the socio-technical debates that will likely shape the future of the wind power sector. The article outlines studies investigating (1) public responses to cumulative landscape and visual impacts, (2) the auditory impact of wind power projects on human health, (3) the science of wind farm design and its implications for planning, and (4) the relevance of the democratic deficit explanation of the so-called "social gap" in wind farm siting. The outcomes of the research being conducted by WindNet stand to help reduce uncertainty within the planning process and assist in providing a more comprehensive and fairer assessment of the possible impacts associated with wind power project development.

References

[1]	Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) & Greenpeace International, Global wind energy outlook 2012. Available from: http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GWEO_2012_lowRes.pdf.
[2]	Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) Global wind report: Annual market update 2013. Available from: http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GWEC-Global-Wind-Report_9-April-2014.pdf.
[3]	Devine-Wright P (2013) Renewable Energy and the Public: from NIMBY to Participation. London: Routledge.
[4]	Jones CR, Eiser JR (2009) Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energ Policy 37: 4604-4614. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.015
[5]	Jones CR, Eiser JR (2010) Understanding ‘local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energ Policy 38: 3106-3117. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.051
[6]	Wolsink M (2012) Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths' concerning the implementation of wind power. Energ policy 48: 83-87. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.010
[7]	Devine-Wright P (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8: 125-139. doi: 10.1002/we.124
[8]	Devine-Wright P (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J Community Appl Soc 19: 426-441. doi: 10.1002/casp.1004
[9]	Devine-Wright P (2007) Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. Manchester: School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester. Available from: http://www. sed. manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism.
[10]	Wolsink M (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew Energ 21: 49-64. doi: 10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00130-5
[11]	Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives'. Renew Sust Energ Rev 11:1188-1207. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005
[12]	Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energ Policy 35: 2683-2691. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001
[13]	Gross C (2007) Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energ Policy 35: 2727-2736. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.013
[14]	Ulm K, Lange E (2002) 3D-Visualisierung zur Beurteilung der Beeintrachtigung des Landschaftsbildes durch Windkraftanlagen. Mensuration Photogrammetrie Genie Rural 100: 716-720.
[15]	Jones CR, Orr BJ, Eiser JR (2011) When is enough, enough? Identifying predictors of capacity estimates for onshore wind-power development in a region of the UK. Energ Policy 39: 4563-4577.
[16]	Pierpont N (2009) Wind turbine syndrome: a report on a natural experiment. Santa Fe, NM, USA: K-Selected Books.
[17]	Farboud A, Crunkhorn R, Trinidade A (2013) ‘Wind turbine syndrome': fact or fiction? J Laryngol Otol 127: 222-226. doi: 10.1017/S0022215112002964
[18]	Cooper LM, Sheate WR (2002) Cumulative effects assessment: A review of UK environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Asses 22: 415-439. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00010-0
[19]	Gunn J, Noble BF (2011) Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Asses 31: 154-160. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003
[20]	Entec (2008) Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Windfarms: Phase 1 Report (September 2008). Glasgow, UK: Entec UK Limited.
[21]	Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, London, UK: Spon Press.
[22]	Scottish Natural Heritage (2012) Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments, In A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, Inverness, UK: Scottish Natural Heritage.
[23]	Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A (2013) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, London, UK: Routledge.
[24]	Ladenburg J, Termansen M, Hasler B (2013) Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines. Energy 54: 45-54. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.021
[25]	Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL (2007) The electrodermal system. In J.T. Cacioppo, L.T. Tassinary, G. Berntson, Handbook of Psychophysiology, 3 Eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[26]	Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG, Larsen JT, et al. (2000) The psychophysiology of emotion. In M. Lewis, J.M Haviland-Jones, L. Feldman Barrett, Handbook of Emotions, 3 Eds., London, UK: The Guildford Press.
[27]	Pfeiffer UJ, Vogeley K, Schilbach L (2013) From gaze cueing to dual eye-tracking: novel approaches to investigate the neural correlates of gaze in social interaction. Neurosci Biobehav R 37: 2516-2528. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.017
[28]	Rayner K (2009) Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q J Exp Psychol 62: 1457-1506. doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461
[29]	Duchowski AT (2002) A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behav Res Meth Inst 34: 455-470. doi: 10.3758/BF03195475
[30]	Holmqvist K, Nyström M, Andersson R, et al. (2011) Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[31]	Nummenmaa L, Hyönä J, Calvo MG (2006) Eye movement assessment of selective attentional capture by emotional pictures. Emotion 6: 257-268. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.257
[32]	Henderson J.M, Hollingworth A (1999) High-level scene perception. Annu Rev Psychol 50: 243-271. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.243
[33]	Mogg K, Bradley BP, Field M, et al. (2003) Eye movements to smoking-related pictures in smokers: relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence. Addiction 98: 825-836. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00392.x
[34]	Lange E, Hehl-Lange S, (2005) Combining a participatory planning approach with a virtual landscape model for the siting of wind turbines. J Environ Plann Man 48: 833-852. doi: 10.1080/09640560500294277
[35]	Lange E (2002) Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning-Where we have been, where we are now and where we might go from here. Trends in GIS and Virtualization in Environmental Planning and Design. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences: 8-18.
[36]	Lange E (2011) 99 volumes later: We can visualise. Now what?. Landscape Urban Plan 100: 403-406.
[37]	Orland B, Budthimedhee K, Uusitalo J (2001) Considering virtual worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning. Landscape Urban Plan 54: 139-148. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00132-3
[38]	Lange E (2001) The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 54: 163-182. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00134-7
[39]	Bishop ID, Rohrmann B (2003) Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison. Landscape Urban Plan 65: 261-277. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00070-7
[40]	Wilson T (2008), OGC KML. Changes. Available from: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml.
[41]	Gamboa G, Munda G (2007) The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energ Policy 35: 1564-1583.
[42]	Molnarova K, Sklenicka P, Stiborek J, et al. (2012) Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Appl Energ 92: 269-278. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.001
[43]	Kang J (2007) Urban Sound Environment. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
[44]	Archer CL, Jacobson MZ (2007) Supplying baseload power and reducing transmission requirements by interconnecting wind farms. J Appl Meteorol Clim 46: 1701-1717. doi: 10.1175/2007JAMC1538.1
[45]	Knight J (2004) Urban wind power: breezing into town. Nature 430: 12-13. doi: 10.1038/430012a
[46]	Pedersen E, Waye KP (2004) Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 116: 3460. doi: 10.1121/1.1815091
[47]	Hao Y, Kang J (2014) Influence of mesoscale urban morphology on the spatial noise attenuation of flyover aircrafts. Appl Acoust 84: 73-82. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2013.12.001
[48]	Pedersen E, Waye KP (2007) Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med 64: 480-486. doi: 10.1136/oem.2006.031039
[49]	Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, et al. (2009) Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am 126: 634. doi: 10.1121/1.3160293
[50]	Bakker RH, Pedersen E, van den Berg GP, et al. (2012) Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Sci Total Environ 425: 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.005
[51]	Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, et al. (2011) Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise and Health 13: 333. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.85502
[52]	DataKustik GmbH (2006) Cadna/A for windows - user manual. Greifenberg.
[53]	Qu F, Kang J (2014) Effects of spatial configuration on the wind turbine noise distribution in residential areas. Proc Forum Acusticum 2014.
[54]	Qu F, Kang J (2013) Modelling spatial distribution of wind turbine noise in sub-urban environments. Proc 2013 AIA-DAGA Conf on Acoustics.
[55]	González JS, Rodríguez ÁGG, Mora J.C, et al. (2011) Overall design optimization of wind farms. Renew Energ 36: 1973-1982. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.10.034
[56]	Cowell R, Bristow G, Munday M (2011) Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J Environ Plann Man 54: 539-557. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.521047
[57]	Sanderse B (2009) Aerodynamics of wind turbine wakes Literature review. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. Available from http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2009/e09016.pdf
[58]	Vermeer LJ, Sørensen JN, Crespo A (2003) Wind turbine wake aerodynamics. Prog Aerosp Sci 39: 467-510. doi: 10.1016/S0376-0421(03)00078-2
[59]	Barclay C (2012) Consents for Wind Farms - Onshore (pp. 1-9). Available from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04370.
[60]	Sturge D, While A, Howell R (2014) Engineering and energy yield: The missing dimension of wind turbine assessment. Energ Policy 65: 245-250. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.052
[61]	Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C (2005) The ‘social gap' in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 14: 460-477. doi: 10.1080/09644010500175833
[62]	Survation, Energy Poll 27/10/13. Available from: http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MailEnergyFinal.pdf.
[63]	Ipsos MORI, Wind power omnibus research, 2012. Available from: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/renewable-uk-wind-power-topline-april.pdf.
[64]	Aitken M (2010) Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energ Policy 38: 1834-1841. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.060
[65]	Cass N, Walker G (2009) Emotion and rationality: The characterisation and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emotion, Space and Society 2: 62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2009.05.006
[66]	Bell D, Gray T, Haggett C, et al. (2013) Re-visiting the ‘social gap': public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environ Polit 22: 115-135. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.755793
[67]	Hall S (1974/1990) ‘Encoding/Decoding', In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, P. Willis (Eds.), Culture Media Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79, London, UK: Routledge.
[68]	Eldridge J (1993) Getting the Message: News, Truth, and Power, London, UK: Routledge.
[69]	Eldridge J, Kitzinger J, Williams K (1997) The Mass Media and Power in Modern Britain, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[70]	Philo G (Ed.) (1999) Message Received, London, UK: Routledge.
[71]	Chapman G, Kumar K, Fraser C, et al. (1997) Environmentalism and the Mass Media, London, UK: Routledge.
[72]	Allan S, Adam B, Carter C (Eds.) (2000) Environmental Risks and the Media, London, UK: Routledge.
[73]	Cox R (2012) Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
[74]	Noelle-Neumann E (1974) The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. J Commun 24: 43-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x
[75]	Miller DT, McFarland C (1987) Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. J Pers Soc Psychol 53: 298-305. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.298
[76]	Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74: 1464-1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
[77]	Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (2007) The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In: J.A Bargh, Social Psychology and the Unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes, 1 Ed., Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
[78]	Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, et al. (2009) Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 97: 17-41. doi: 10.1037/a0015575
[79]	Crisp RJ, Turner RN (2009) Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. Am Psychol 64: 231-240.
[80]	Miles E, Crisp RJ (2014) A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Process Interg 17: 3-26. doi: 10.1177/1368430213510573
[81]	Akella AK, Saini RP, Sharma MP (2009) Social, economical and environmental impacts of renewable energy systems. Renew Energ 34: 390-396. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.002
[82]	Shafiullah GM, MT Oo A, Shawkat Ali ABM, et al. (2013) Potential challenges of integrating large-scale wind energy into the power grid-A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 20: 306-321. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2014 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)