IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v209y2018icp445-454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting the visual impact of onshore wind farms via landscape indices: A method for objectivizing planning and decision processes

Author

Listed:
  • Sklenicka, Petr
  • Zouhar, Jan

Abstract

Visual impact is one of the main factors influencing the acceptance of wind farms by the public and by the authorities. It therefore often sets the environmental and social limits of energy policy and energy use. However, the assessment of visual impacts is subjective, as is often pointed out by critics of the evaluation process. The study presented here for the first time uses accurately and objectively measurable landscape indices to directly predict the visual impact of onshore wind turbines. The method also for the first time evaluates map-based landscape indices in a panoramic simulation, and this provides a better match of visual preferences with landscape indices than the cartographic projection used until now. 400 respondents from four Central European countries (Austria, Germany, Poland and Czechia) provided an evaluation of their scenic perception of 32 different landscapes, in each case with and without wind turbines. At the same time, we analysed 12 indices characterizing the principal landscape components (relief, land cover and landscape pattern) on the basis of the 32 landscape photographs. These were further tested as predictors of visual impact. The most prominent predictors of visual impact were the Percentage of Industrial Area (including Commercial, Logistic and Mining Areas), Percentage of Forest Cover, Density of Technical Infrastructure, Number of Elevation Landmarks, and Elevation Variation. None of the three landscape pattern indices was statistically significant. On the basis of a regression model that is able to predict the potential visual impact in large areas of four Central European countries (over 830,000 km2), we present the general principles of an objectivized method for predicting the visual impact of onshore wind farms. The method makes an automatic assessment of the visual impact in large areas of entire regions or countries via a GIS analysis of Sentinel data and DEM data. This forms a good basis for both preventive evaluation and causal evaluation, and provides significant support for objectivizing the planning and decision process in order to mitigate negative environmental and social impacts of the use of wind energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sklenicka, Petr & Zouhar, Jan, 2018. "Predicting the visual impact of onshore wind farms via landscape indices: A method for objectivizing planning and decision processes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 445-454.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:209:y:2018:i:c:p:445-454
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917315854
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Molnarova, Kristina & Sklenicka, Petr & Stiborek, Jiri & Svobodova, Kamila & Salek, Miroslav & Brabec, Elizabeth, 2012. "Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 269-278.
    2. Betakova, Vendula & Vojar, Jiri & Sklenicka, Petr, 2015. "Wind turbines location: How many and how far?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 23-31.
    3. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Tsouchlaraki, Androniki & Tsiropoulos, Manolis & Serpetsidakis, Michalis, 2009. "Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(4), pages 546-553, April.
    4. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    5. Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
    6. Blumentrath, Christina & Tveit, Mari Sundli, 2014. "Visual characteristics of roads: A literature review of people’s perception and Norwegian design practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 58-71.
    7. Savino, Matteo M. & Manzini, Riccardo & Della Selva, Vincenzo & Accorsi, Riccardo, 2017. "A new model for environmental and economic evaluation of renewable energy systems: The case of wind turbines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 739-752.
    8. Wróżyński, Rafał & Sojka, Mariusz & Pyszny, Krzysztof, 2016. "The application of GIS and 3D graphic software to visual impact assessment of wind turbines," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(PA), pages 625-635.
    9. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    10. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    11. Tsoutsos, T. & Tsitoura, I. & Kokologos, D. & Kalaitzakis, K., 2015. "Sustainable siting process in large wind farms case study in Crete," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 474-480.
    12. Manchado, Cristina & Gomez-Jauregui, Valentin & Otero, César, 2015. "A review on the Spanish Method of visual impact assessment of wind farms: SPM2," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 756-767.
    13. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dubgaard, Alex, 2007. "Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4059-4071, August.
    14. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    15. Maslov, Nicolas & Claramunt, Christophe & Wang, Tianzhen & Tang, Tianhao, 2017. "Method to estimate the visual impact of an offshore wind farm," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 1422-1430.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Suling Guo & Wei Sun & Wen Chen & Jianxin Zhang & Peixue Liu, 2021. "Impact of Artificial Elements on Mountain Landscape Perception: An Eye-Tracking Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Wang, Xuefei & Zeng, Xiangwu & Yang, Xu & Li, Jiale, 2019. "Seismic response of offshore wind turbine with hybrid monopile foundation based on centrifuge modelling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 1335-1350.
    4. Holland, Robert A. & Beaumont, Nicola & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie & Gross, Robert J.K. & Heptonstall, Philip J. & Ketsopoulou, Ioanna & Winskel, Mark & Watson, Jim & Taylor, Gail, 2018. "Incorporating ecosystem services into the design of future energy systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 812-822.
    5. Li, Jiale & Wang, Xuefei & Yu, Xiong (Bill), 2018. "Use of spatio-temporal calibrated wind shear model to improve accuracy of wind resource assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 469-485.
    6. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. Gkeka-Serpetsidaki, Pandora & Papadopoulos, Stylianos & Tsoutsos, Theocharis, 2022. "Assessment of the visual impact of offshore wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 358-370.
    8. Hanna Szumilas-Kowalczyk & Renata Giedych, 2022. "Analysis of Regulatory Possibilities and Obstacles to Expand Renewable Energy and Preserve Landscape Quality in the Silesian Voivodship," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-32, February.
    9. Valsaraj, P. & Thumba, Drisya Alex & Asokan, K. & Kumar, K. Satheesh, 2020. "Symbolic regression-based improved method for wind speed extrapolation from lower to higher altitudes for wind energy applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    10. Peri, Erez & Tal, Alon, 2020. "A sustainable way forward for wind power: Assessing turbines’ environmental impacts using a holistic GIS analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    11. Farrell, Niall & Devine, Mel T. & Soroudi, Alireza, 2018. "An auction framework to integrate dynamic transmission expansion planning and pay-as-bid wind connection auctions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 2462-2477.
    12. Skenteris, Konstantinos & Mirasgedis, Sevastianos & Tourkolias, Christos, 2019. "Implementing hedonic pricing models for valuing the visual impact of wind farms in Greece," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-258.
    13. Alphan, Hakan, 2024. "Incorporating visibility information into multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for wind turbine deployment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PB).
    14. Irene van Kamp & Frits van den Berg, 2021. "Health Effects Related to Wind Turbine Sound: An Update," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-29, August.
    15. Michael Roth & Silvio Hildebrandt & Ulrich Walz & Wolfgang Wende, 2021. "Large-Area Empirically Based Visual Landscape Quality Assessment for Spatial Planning—A Validation Approach by Method Triangulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    16. Leon Sander & Christopher Jung & Dirk Schindler, 2024. "Global Review on Environmental Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy in the Field of Tension between Human Societies and Natural Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-34, June.
    17. Lorena Peña & Miren Onaindia & Beatriz Fernández de Manuel & Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi & Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga, 2018. "Analysing the Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services to Reorient Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Bilbao (Northern Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. Peri, Erez & Tal, Alon, 2020. "A sustainable way forward for wind power: Assessing turbines’ environmental impacts using a holistic GIS analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Pohl, Johannes & Rudolph, David & Lyhne, Ivar & Clausen, Niels-Erik & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Hübner, Gundula & Kørnøv, Lone & Kirkegaard, Julia K., 2021. "Annoyance of residents induced by wind turbine obstruction lights: A cross-country comparison of impact factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    5. Betakova, Vendula & Vojar, Jiri & Sklenicka, Petr, 2015. "Wind turbines location: How many and how far?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 23-31.
    6. David Huckebrink & Valentin Bertsch, 2021. "Integrating Behavioural Aspects in Energy System Modelling—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    7. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    8. Molnarova, Kristina & Sklenicka, Petr & Stiborek, Jiri & Svobodova, Kamila & Salek, Miroslav & Brabec, Elizabeth, 2012. "Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 269-278.
    9. Fitiwi, Desta Z. & Lynch, Muireann & Bertsch, Valentin, 2020. "Power system impacts of community acceptance policies for renewable energy deployment under storage cost uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 893-912.
    10. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    11. Ioannidis, R. & Mamassis, N. & Efstratiadis, A. & Koutsoyiannis, D., 2022. "Reversing visibility analysis: Towards an accelerated a priori assessment of landscape impacts of renewable energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    12. Astrid Buchmayr & Luc Van Ootegem & Jo Dewulf & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2021. "Understanding Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Technologies and the Effect of Local Experiences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    13. Wróżyński, Rafał & Sojka, Mariusz & Pyszny, Krzysztof, 2016. "The application of GIS and 3D graphic software to visual impact assessment of wind turbines," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(PA), pages 625-635.
    14. Ladenburg, Jacob & Termansen, Mette & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-54.
    15. Roddis, Philippa & Carver, Stephen & Dallimer, Martin & Norman, Paul & Ziv, Guy, 2018. "The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 353-364.
    16. van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Kelley, Hugh & Jeserich, Nadine, 2015. "What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-22.
    17. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    18. Manchado, Cristina & Gomez-Jauregui, Valentin & Lizcano, Piedad E. & Iglesias, Andres & Galvez, Akemi & Otero, Cesar, 2019. "Wind farm repowering guided by visual impact criteria," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 197-207.
    19. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    20. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:209:y:2018:i:c:p:445-454. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.