Developing a renewable energy planning decision-support tool: Stakeholder input guiding strategic decisions

González, Ainhoa; Connell, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118782

Cited by 13 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 152 studies were selected and analyzed systematically (Table 1). This review is a global assessment and includes studies from most Browning et al, 2021 [28] Mammal Review Europe Buchholz et al, 2021 [29] European Journal of Wildlife Research Germany Bunzel et al, 2019 [30] Energy Research & Social Science Germany Cerri et al, 2023 [31] Global Ecology and Conservation Sardinia, Italy Chowdhury et al, 2022 [32] Cleaner Engineering and Technology Not specified Coppes et al, 2020 [33] Journal of Ornithology Not specified [53] Biological Conservation North America Friedenberg and Frick, 2021 [54] Biological Conservation USA, Canada García et al, 2016 [55] Energy Policy Sandnes, Norway Gasparatos et al, 2017 [56] Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Not specified Gasparatos et al, 2021 [57] Trends in Ecology & Evolution Not specified Gauld et al, 2022 [58] Journal of Applied Ecology Europe, North Africa Gaultier et al, 2020 [59] Environmental Science & Technology Baltic Sea Countries, Europe Gibson et al, 2017 [60] Trends in Ecology & Evolution Not specified González and Connell, 2022 [61] Applied Energy Ireland Gorman et al, 2023 [62] Science of the Total Environment Ireland Groth and Vogt, 2014 [63] Energy Policy Huron County, MI, USA [149] Biological Conservation Germany Voigt et al, 2019 [150] Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Mainly Germany Wang and Wang, 2015 [151] Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Not specified Wang et al, 2015 [152] Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Not specified Wang et al, 2023 [153] Science of the Total Environment Xilinhot, Inner Mongolia, China Watson et al, 2018 [154] The Journal of Raptor Research Global Wawrzyczek et al, 2018 [155] Environmental Impact Assessment Review Scotland [160] Ecosphere Scotland, United Kingdom Within the main impact categories, several key topics and keywords are addressed by the literature. To evaluate the focus and research gaps of the recent literature, the occurrence of these critical issues was counted and visualized.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Review on Environmental Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy in the Field of Tension between Human Societies and Natural Systems

Sander,

Jung,

Schindler

2024

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deploying onshore wind energy as a cornerstone of future global energy systems challenges societies and decision-makers worldwide. Expanding wind energy should contribute to a more sustainable electricity generation without harnessing humans and their environment. Opponents often highlight the negative environmental impacts of wind energy to impede its expansion. This study reviews 152 studies to synthesize, summarize, and discuss critically the current knowledge, research gaps, and mitigation strategies on the environmental impacts of onshore wind energy. The investigated effects comprise impacts on the abiotic and biotic environment, with birds and bats in particular, noise and visual impacts. Effects are discussed in the context of social acceptance, other energy technologies, and wind energy expansion in forests. This review illustrates that many effects are highly case-specific and must be more generalizable. Studies are biased regarding the research focus and areas, needing more standardized research methods and long-term measurements. Most studies focus on the direct mortality of birds and bats at wind farms and are concentrated in Europe and North America. Knowledge gaps persist for many impact categories, and the efficacy of mitigation strategies has yet to be proven. More targeted, unbiased research is required that allows for an objective evaluation of the environmental impacts of wind energy and strategies to mitigate them. Impacts, such as those on biodiversity, need to be addressed in the context of other anthropogenic influences and the benefits of wind energy. This forms the basis for a socially acceptable, efficient, and sustainable expansion of wind energy.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Review on Environmental Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy in the Field of Tension between Human Societies and Natural Systems

Sander,

Jung,

Schindler

2024

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mwanza and Ulgen, 2020 [47] [51] include criteria to assess the impact to the local community, impact of noise, and visual blight on the landscape; • Some tools have been designed to act as structuring for stakeholder; discussion/participatory methods (n = 13).e.g. González and Connell, 2022 [54], and Mekonnen and Gorsevsk, 2015 [53]; • Multi-criteria decision analysis is often used to support the generation of results in these tools (n = 17) e.g. ELECTRE [44], Weighted Sum Model [55], and TOPSIS [56]; • Fuzzy and hybrid methods for dealing with ambiguity in decisionmaking also feature in the search results (n = 9).…”

Section: Review Of Decision Support Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%