Integrating applied ecology and planning policy: the case of micro‐turbines and wildlife conservation

Abstract

Summary1. For applied ecology to have real-world impact, collaboration between scientists, policy makers and industry is crucial. To demonstrate this, we present a case study of the planning process for micro-wind turbines (units generating <50 kW) in the UK. Micro-turbines are now routinely installed in many European countries and the USA, and in spite of the rapid growth in numbers, there has been little study of their impact on wildlife. Consequently, the evidence-base upon which to establish planning guidance is very limited. 2. Using the situation in the UK as an example, we show that (i) the planning process for micro-turbines varies widely among local authorities; (ii) a lack of data on their effects on wildlife makes interpretation of ecological surveys problematic; and (iii) recent changes to the planning process, designed to permit installation of micro-turbines in some contexts without requiring planning permission, are unlikely to change this status quo. 3. Synthesis and applications. We argue that (i) further research on the effects of microturbines on wildlife should take into account the needs of stakeholders, in particular, with regard to how effects may vary in different contexts; (ii) better planning guidance should be developed urgently, incorporating all available evidence and identifying further research needs; and (iii) a working group including representatives from the turbine industry, ecologists, policy makers and statutory bodies should be set up to streamline this process. These recommendations provide a starting point for on-the-ground turbine installers, planners and ecologists, and a way forward for managing the future planning process for micro-turbines.

Landscape‐scale effects of single‐ and multiple small wind turbines on bat activity

“…However, based on our own experience and anecdotal data collected during the construction of our SWT owner database (e.g. Park et al ., ), we feel that our sample of sites fairly represents the usual number of SWTs installed per site; sites with more than two and in particular more than three SWTs remain relatively rare in the UK. Finally, the combination of recording bat activity over a relatively large scale (up to 500 m from SWTs) along transects, and a distance‐based approach to turbine effects, required that we analysed our data in distance bands.…”

“…Data were collected at 34 SWT sites in central and eastern Scotland. Sites were selected from an existing database of owners (Minderman et al ., ; Park et al ., ) based on how representative they were of common UK SWT installation settings in terms of habitat, turbine models and size. All turbines studied here were free‐standing and between 6 and 25 m (mean 16 m, 75% of sites had turbines between 15 and 18 m; including hub height in the analyses presented here does not affect results or conclusions – see Supplementary Material) in hub height, and all were in rural settings but specific habitat in the surrounding area varied (see Habitat data and variable selection).…”

“…Indeed, some companies specifically promote the installation of multiple SWTs to maximize yield and eligibility for government grants or payback schemes. As a result, where SWT installation requires planning permission (Park, Turner & Minderman, ), decision makers are increasingly asked to decide whether multiple turbine installations would have greater effects on wildlife, or if limiting the number of SWTs to be installed would be an effective mitigation option. Currently, the evidence base for such decisions for SWTs specifically is entirely lacking.…”

Drivers of Public Attitudes towards Small Wind Turbines in the UK

“…Small wind turbines are legally defined in the UK as having an electricity generation capacity of up to 50kW (Energy Act 2004), however there is no globally accepted definition, with the upper limit of individual countries’ definitions typically ranging from 15-100kW [ 10 ]. Within the UK definition there is wide variation in turbine height and design, as it encompasses both building mounted and free-standing SWTs, horizontal and vertical turbine models, and on-grid and off-grid situations [ 11 ].…”

“…The nature and location of SWTs differs markedly from these large wind developments. For example, they can be installed in more urbanised environments such as on buildings, factories and in gardens, where the public may be more likely to live and work in close proximity, and can be owned by individuals and local communities [ 11 ]. In contrast, large wind farms require relatively remote, open areas and are typically owned by private companies.…”