IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offshore Wind Energy: Good Practice in Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Compensation


  • Jens Lüdeke

    () (Technical University of Berlin, Environmental Assessment and Research Group, Sekr. EB5, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, Germany)


Aiming towards good practice in the planning and approval of offshore wind farms suggestions are provided for the amendment of environmental impact assessment (EIA), an effective marine spatial planning and the establishment of marine compensation measure. The investigation is focused on the situation in Germany as a frontrunner in ecological research on offshore wind energy. After 10 years of research in Germany, it is timely to offer a synopsis of the results especially regarding the successful investigations of mitigation measures. The results are based on published data collected in Germany over the last 10 years, as well as international research. The outcomes of the research were validated by interviewing experts using the Delphi method.Key findings for good practice in impact assessment, mitigation and compensation:1.EIAs should focus on decision-relevant subjects of protection (i.e. specific bird species and harbour porpoises).2.There is a strong necessity for thresholds for the approval process.3.Exclusion of OWFs in hotspots of sensitive species.4.Application of state-of-the-art mitigation measures particularly against underwater noise to avoid damages of the hearing of porpoises.5.The introduction of marine compensation measures is strongly suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Lüdeke, 2017. "Offshore Wind Energy: Good Practice in Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Compensation," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-31, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s1464333217500053
    DOI: 10.1142/S1464333217500053

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ashley, M.C. & Mangi, S.C. & Rodwell, L.D., 2014. "The potential of offshore windfarms to act as marine protected areas – A systematic review of current evidence," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 301-309.
    2. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Levrel, Harold & Pioch, Sylvain & Carlier, Antoine, 2014. "Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm projects: The current situation in Europe," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 172-183.
    3. Masden, Elizabeth A. & McCluskie, Aly & Owen, Ellie & Langston, Rowena H.W., 2015. "Renewable energy developments in an uncertain world: The case of offshore wind and birds in the UK," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 169-172.
    4. Van Dover, C.L. & Aronson, J. & Pendleton, L. & Smith, S. & Arnaud-Haond, S. & Moreno-Mateos, D. & Barbier, E. & Billett, D. & Bowers, K. & Danovaro, R. & Edwards, A. & Kellert, S. & Morato, T. & Poll, 2014. "Ecological restoration in the deep sea: Desiderata," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 98-106.
    5. Jay, Stephen, 2010. "Strategic environmental assessment for energy production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3489-3497, July.
    6. Punt, Maarten J. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Stel, Jan H., 2009. "Spatial planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 93-103, November.
    7. P. Scemama & H. Levrel, 2016. "Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Assess the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration Outcomes in Four Institutional Contexts," Post-Print hal-01239781, HAL.
    8. Fletcher, Stephen & McKinley, Emma & Buchan, Kenneth C. & Smith, Ness & McHugh, Karen, 2013. "Effective practice in marine spatial planning: A participatory evaluation of experience in Southern England," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 341-348.
    9. Levrel, Harold & Pioch, Sylvain & Spieler, Richard, 2012. "Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: Which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of ecosystem services and ecological functions?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1202-1210.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:wsi:jeapmx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s1464333217500053. 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: (Tai Tone Lim). General contact details of provider: .

    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.