IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v116y2018icp145-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape-scale wildlife species richness metrics to inform wind and solar energy facility siting: An Arizona case study

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Kathryn A.
  • Jarchow, Christopher J.
  • Arundel, Terence R.
  • Jamwal, Pankaj
  • Borens, Amanda
  • Drost, Charles A.

Abstract

The juxtaposition of wildlife and wind or solar energy facility infrastructure can present problems for developers, planners, policy makers, and management agencies. Guidance on siting of these renewable energy facilities may help identify potential wildlife-facility conflicts with species of regulatory or economic concern. However, existing spatial guidance usually does not consider all wildlife that might use a potential facility location or corridors for its servicing infrastructure. We illustrate an approach toward assessing potential wildlife-facility conflicts using readily available vertebrate habitat models. The U.S. Geological Survey's Gap Analysis Program (GAP) has developed spatial models of potential habitat for vertebrate species across the entire nation. To illustrate their applicability, we used GAP models to estimate richness of all native, terrestrial vertebrates within Arizona and for those vertebrates grouped by class or by sensitivity to the type of facility infrastructure. We examined the spatial overlap of high species richness of each group with agency-developed guidance used to inform facility-siting decisions and found that GAP-based richness mappings augmented existing guidance. As the GAP vertebrate habitat models are publicly available for the entire USA, use of these data can provide a coarse view of potential wildlife-facility conflicts and inform facility planning early in the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Kathryn A. & Jarchow, Christopher J. & Arundel, Terence R. & Jamwal, Pankaj & Borens, Amanda & Drost, Charles A., 2018. "Landscape-scale wildlife species richness metrics to inform wind and solar energy facility siting: An Arizona case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 145-152.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:116:y:2018:i:c:p:145-152
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518300600
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.052?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. Taber Allison & Terry Root & Peter Frumhoff, 2014. "Thinking globally and siting locally – renewable energy and biodiversity in a rapidly warming world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 1-6, September.
    2. Kahn, Robert D., 2000. "Siting Struggles: The Unique Challenge of Permitting Renewable Energy Power Plants," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 21-33, March.
    3. Victoria Gartman & Lea Bulling & Marie Dahmen & Gesa Geißler & Johann Köppel, 2016. "Mitigation Measures for Wildlife in Wind Energy Development, Consolidating the State of Knowledge — Part 1: Planning and Siting, Construction," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-45, September.
    4. Boykin, Kenneth G. & Thompson, Bruce C. & Propeck-Gray, Suzanne, 2010. "Accuracy of gap analysis habitat models in predicting physical features for wildlife-habitat associations in the southwest U.S," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(23), pages 2769-2775.
    5. Victoria Gartman & Lea Bulling & Marie Dahmen & Gesa Geißler & Johann Köppel, 2016. "Mitigation Measures for Wildlife in Wind Energy Development, Consolidating the State of Knowledge — Part 2: Operation, Decommissioning," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-31, September.
    6. Stoms, David M. & Dashiell, Stephanie L. & Davis, Frank W., 2013. "Siting solar energy development to minimize biological impacts," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 289-298.
    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. Valerie Rountree & Elizabeth Baldwin & Jeffrey Hanlon, 2022. "A review of stakeholder participation studies in renewable electricity and water: does the resource context matter?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 232-247, June.

    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. Benjamin Pakenham & Anna Ermakova & Ali Mehmanparast, 2021. "A Review of Life Extension Strategies for Offshore Wind Farms Using Techno-Economic Assessments," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, March.
    2. Szumilas-Kowalczyk, H. & Pevzner, N. & Giedych, R., 2020. "Long-term visual impacts of aging infrastructure: Challenges of decommissioning wind power infrastructure and a survey of alternative strategies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 550-560.
    3. Qi, Ruijuan & Ma, Guowei & Zhang, Qiwen & Liu, Chang & Wang, Qi, 2024. "Innovation for sustainability: Harnessing the power of efficient natural resource markets for a greener economic recovery," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. C, O. Mauricio Hernandez & Shadman, Milad & Amiri, Mojtaba Maali & Silva, Corbiniano & Estefen, Segen F. & La Rovere, Emilio, 2021. "Environmental impacts of offshore wind installation, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning activities: A case study of Brazil," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. Xiong, Wei & Jiang, Mengzhen & Tashkhodjaev, Mukhtorkhon & Pashayev, Zohrab, 2023. "Greening the economic recovery: Natural resource market efficiency as a key driver," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(PB).
    6. Gasparatos, Alexandros & Doll, Christopher N.H. & Esteban, Miguel & Ahmed, Abubakari & Olang, Tabitha A., 2017. "Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 161-184.
    7. Hori, Keiko & Matsui, Takanori & Hasuike, Takashi & Fukui, Ken-ichi & Machimura, Takashi, 2016. "Development and application of the renewable energy regional optimization utility tool for environmental sustainability: REROUTES," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 548-561.
    8. Frate, Claudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Stakeholder subjectivities regarding barriers and drivers to the introduction of utility-scale solar photovoltaic power in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 346-352.
    9. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    10. Chelsea Schelly & Emily Prehoda & Jessica Price & Aimee Delach & Rupak Thapaliya, 2020. "Ratepayer Perspectives on Mid- to Large-Scale Solar Development on Long Island, NY: Lessons for Reducing Siting Conflict through Supported Development Types," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Walston, Leroy J. & Rollins, Katherine E. & LaGory, Kirk E. & Smith, Karen P. & Meyers, Stephanie A., 2016. "A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 405-414.
    12. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    13. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    14. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    15. Blaydes, H. & Potts, S.G. & Whyatt, J.D. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Opportunities to enhance pollinator biodiversity in solar parks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Graham, Paul W. & Williams, David J., 2003. "Optimal technological choices in meeting Australian energy policy goals," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-712, November.
    17. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    18. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    19. Feuerbacher, Arndt & Laub, Moritz & Högy, Petra & Lippert, Christian & Pataczek, Lisa & Schindele, Stephan & Wieck, Christine & Zikeli, Sabine, 2021. "An analytical framework to estimate the economics and adoption potential of dual land-use systems: The case of agrivoltaics," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    20. Claire Burch & Rebecca Loraamm & Travis Gliedt, 2020. "The “Green on Green” Conflict in Wind Energy Development: A Case Study of Environmentally Conscious Individuals in Oklahoma, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, October.

    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:enepol:v:116:y:2018:i:c:p:145-152. 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/locate/enpol .

    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.