IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v103y2019icp49-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing ecological context to anthropogenic subsea noise: Assessing listening space reductions of marine mammals from tidal energy devices

Author

Listed:
  • Pine, Matthew K.
  • Schmitt, Pál
  • Culloch, Ross M.
  • Lieber, Lilian
  • Kregting, Louise T.

Abstract

The deployment of tidal energy arrays is gaining momentum to provide marine renewable energy (MRE) to the global market. However, there are concerns over the potential impacts underwater noise emissions from operational devices may have on marine fauna. Auditory masking (the interference of important biological signals by anthropogenic noise) is a highly pervasive impact to marine fauna. We used a relatively new approach to evaluate the effects of noise from operational tidal energy devices on the listening space of marine mammals. Here, listening space reductions (LSR) for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) were assessed in winter and summer for two tidal energy devices of different designs. Results demonstrated that LSR was influenced by type of turbine, species, and season. For instance, LSRs for harbour seals were in excess of 80% within 60 m, whilst for harbour porpoises they were in excess of 55% within 10 m of the devices. For both species, LSRs were highest during winter, characterised by low ambient noise conditions. These findings highlight the importance of assessing masking over seasons, as masking effects are highly influenced by ambient noise conditions. Understanding the natural variation within seasons is also particularly relevant for tidal turbine noise assessments as devices are typically situated in highly dynamic environments. Since masking effects occur at the lower level of behavioural impacts in marine mammals, assessing the spatial extent of masking as part of environmental impact assessments is recommended. The listening space formula, which is largely based on measurable environmental factors (device and ambient noise), is transferable to any MRE device, or arrays, for any species (for which an audiogram can be assumed) and therefore provides an effective method to better inform MRE pre- and post-consenting processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pine, Matthew K. & Schmitt, Pál & Culloch, Ross M. & Lieber, Lilian & Kregting, Louise T., 2019. "Providing ecological context to anthropogenic subsea noise: Assessing listening space reductions of marine mammals from tidal energy devices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 49-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:103:y:2019:i:c:p:49-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118308190
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.024?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. Manfred Lenzen, 2010. "Current State of Development of Electricity-Generating Technologies: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-130, March.
    2. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    3. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    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. Martínez, M.L. & Vázquez, G. & Pérez-Maqueo, O. & Silva, R. & Moreno-Casasola, P. & Mendoza-González, G. & López-Portillo, J. & MacGregor-Fors, I. & Heckel, G. & Hernández-Santana, J.R. & García-Franc, 2021. "A systemic view of potential environmental impacts of ocean energy production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    2. Dang, Zhigao & Song, Baowei & Mao, Zhaoyong & Yang, Guangyong, 2022. "Performance analysis of a horizontal axis ocean current turbine with spanwise microgrooved surface," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 655-667.
    3. Fontaine, A.A. & Straka, W.A. & Meyer, R.S. & Jonson, M.L. & Young, S.D. & Neary, V.S., 2020. "Performance and wake flow characterization of a 1:8.7-scale reference USDOE MHKF1 hydrokinetic turbine to establish a verification and validation test database," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 451-467.
    4. Harry R Harding & Timothy A C Gordon & Emma Eastcott & Stephen D Simpson & Andrew N Radford & Leigh Simmons, 2019. "Causes and consequences of intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(6), pages 1501-1511.

    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. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    3. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    5. 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).
    6. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2011. "Understanding the variability of wind power costs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3632-3639.
    7. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    8. Gottschamer, L. & Zhang, Q., 2016. "Interactions of factors impacting implementation and sustainability of renewable energy sourced electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 164-174.
    9. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "South Korean energy scenarios show how nuclear power can reduce future energy and environmental costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 569-578.
    10. Backhaus, Klaus & Gausling, Philipp & Hildebrand, Luise, 2015. "Comparing the incomparable: Lessons to be learned from models evaluating the feasibility of Desertec," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 905-913.
    11. József Kádár & Martina Pilloni & Tareq Abu Hamed, 2023. "A Survey of Renewable Energy, Climate Change, and Policy Awareness in Israel: The Long Path for Citizen Participation in the National Renewable Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Spänhoff, Bernd, 2014. "Current status and future prospects of hydropower in Saxony (Germany) compared to trends in Germany, the European Union and the World," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 518-525.
    13. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    14. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "Nuclear power can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy: Rating Australia’s optimal future electricity-generation mix by technologies and policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 712-725.
    15. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    17. Silva Herran, Diego & Dai, Hancheng & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Global assessment of onshore wind power resources considering the distance to urban areas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 75-86.
    18. Amy H. I. Lee & Chun Yu Lin & He-Yau Kang & Wen Hsin Lee, 2012. "An Integrated Performance Evaluation Model for the Photovoltaics Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-21, April.
    19. Elena Helerea & Marius D. Calin & Cristian Musuroi, 2023. "Water Energy Nexus and Energy Transition—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-31, February.
    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:rensus:v:103:y:2019:i:c:p:49-57. 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/600126/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.