Wind turbines location: How many and how far?. (1st August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Betakova, Vendula; Vojar, Jiri; Sklenicka, Petr
• Is Part Of: Applied energy. Volume 151(2015:Aug. 01)
• Page Start: 23
• Page End: 31
• Publication Date: 2015-08-01
• Subjects: Visual impact -- Landscape quality -- Visual preference -- Wind power -- Renewable energy planning; Power (Mechanics) -- Periodicals; Energy conservation -- Periodicals; Energy conversion -- Periodicals; 621.042
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.060
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-2619

Abstract

Highlights: Negative impact of wind turbines (WTs) diminished with distance from observer. Impact disappeared at 5–10 km with respect to landscape's aesthetic quality. Negative effects increased with number of WTs in an approximately linear manner. A cumulative effect of higher numbers of WTs was not confirmed. Distance and numbers interacted significantly with landscape aesthetic quality. Abstract: Existing research relating to visual impact of wind turbines (WTs) affirms this to be an essential parameter for public acceptance in most cases as well as for the planning process and permitting of planned wind farms. This study brings new findings about the impact of two crucial factors: numbers of WTs (1–25) visible and distances of WTs (0.75–15 km) from the observer (e.g. from residential buildings, landmarks, observation points). Photographs of three aesthetically varying landscapes with various numbers of WTs (Vestas V90, height 105 m, rotor diameter 90 m) at various distances were evaluated in terms of visual preferences. The results show significant effect from the aesthetic value of a given landscape on the impact of both tested factors. An important finding is that the landscape with the highest aesthetic quality initially was evaluated to be the absolute worst after the addition of WTs and vice versa. Increasing numbers of WTs in the least attractive landscape had less visual impact than did doing so in the two more attractive landscapes. This helps explain strong public opposition to locating WTs in aesthetically valuable landscapes and their greater acceptance in less-attractive landscapes. Increasing stepwise from 1 to 25 WTs within a given landscape progressively decreased visual preferences, although the cumulative effect of a higher number of WTs was not confirmed. We also established threshold distances after which the negative visual impact of a WT disappeared (10 km for the most attractive landscape, 5 km for the least attractive one). Based on these findings, visibility zones were proposed for practical assessment of WTs' visual impact. The study's results can make a substantial contribution towards reducing negative visual impact in WT planning and thus achieving greater public acceptance of these devices.