IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v92y2012icp269-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Molnarova, Kristina
  • Sklenicka, Petr
  • Stiborek, Jiri
  • Svobodova, Kamila
  • Salek, Miroslav
  • Brabec, Elizabeth

Abstract

There is a dichotomy in the view of wind farms among members of the public: on one hand, there is a desire for renewable energy sources, and on the other hand, there is a major concern about the visual impact of wind turbines used for power production. This concern for visual impact is a major factor in the reaction of the public to the development of new wind farms. Our study aims to objectify this influence and to establish the factors that determine how people evaluate these structures. We tested the visual quality of landscapes in which these structures are to be placed, the number of structures and their distance from the viewer, and various characteristics of our respondents. We found that the physical attributes of the landscape and wind turbines influenced the respondents’ reactions far more than socio-demographic and attitudinal factors. One of the most important results of our study is the sensitivity of respondents to the placement of wind turbines in landscapes of high aesthetic quality, and, on the other hand, a relatively high level of acceptance of these structures in unattractive landscapes. Wind turbines also receive better acceptance if the number of turbines in a landscape is limited, and if the structures are kept away from observation points, such as settlements, transportation infrastructure and viewpoints. The most important characteristic of the respondents that influenced their evaluation was their attitude to wind power. On the basis of these results, recommendations are presented for placing wind turbines and for protecting the character of the landscape within the planning and policy making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:92:y:2012:i:c:p:269-278
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911006969
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2009. "Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 380-387, March.
    2. Torres Sibille, Ana del Carmen & Cloquell-Ballester, Víctor-Andrés & Cloquell-Ballester, Vicente-Agustín & Darton, Richard, 2009. "Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 40-66, January.
    3. Krohn, Søren & Damborg, Steffen, 1999. "On public attitudes towards wind power," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 954-960.
    4. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Eltham, Douglas C. & Harrison, Gareth P. & Allen, Simon J., 2008. "Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 23-33, January.
    7. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    8. Connolly, D. & Lund, H. & Mathiesen, B.V. & Leahy, M., 2010. "A review of computer tools for analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 1059-1082, April.
    9. Price, Trevor & Probert, Doug, 1997. "Integrated approach for the achievement of environmental sustainability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 58(2-3), pages 73-129, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    12. Kaldellis, J. K., 2005. "Social attitude towards wind energy applications in Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 595-602, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Ian D Bishop, 2002. "Determination of thresholds of visual impact: the case of wind turbines," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 29(5), pages 707-718, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:92:y:2012:i:c:p:269-278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.