Visual Impact Evaluation Methods of Wind Parks: Application for a Greek Island

Abstract

One of the main factors affecting public acceptance of wind parks is their visual impact. Very often this problem can be solved by taking into account certain methods and techniques. This paper reviews the most common methods (such as Quechee analysis, the Spanish method, the method of visual limits); as example is presented the evaluation of the visual impact of a wind park in Chania, Crete. Besides, the outcomes are combined with the psychometric testing of the residents by the use of questionnaires and with the values of the Spanish method. The results of the study prove that the quantification of the potential visual impact could minimize this, apparently, main reason that affects public acceptance.

Residents’ Views on Landscape and Ecosystem Services during a Wind Farm Proposal in an Island Protected Area

“…Aesthetics and landscape were the top-ranked theme words when relating to wind farm impacts in our survey. This is in line with research showing that aesthetics plays a dominant role in shaping local attitudes toward wind farm development in broadly similar circumstances [81][82][83][84].…”

“…With respect to wind farm planning, relatively few studies of this kind have investigated residents' perceptions in protected areas in Greece [46,50,[105][106][107]. Studies relating to wind farm impacts often take a 'reductionist' approach with a focus solely on specific impacts; i.e., visual [83], economic evaluations [6,108] or spatial planning design [109]. Studies rarely explore the public's attitudes and preferences; however, this may also reflect a wider lack of participatory management in Natura 2000 protected areas both in Greece [110] and in other European countries [28,29].…”

What Do We Really Know? A Meta-Analysis of Studies Into Public Responses to Wind Energy

“…However, we can expect similar sets of responses in different populations and similar dominant response types allowing development of an empirical framework for impact estimation. As mentioned, the key variables have been analyzed in a number of papers [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Some of the key findings are summarised in Table 1.…”

“…• development of better tools or procedures for public engagement early in the planning process [1][2][3][4][5] • understanding of relative significance of key design variables such as distance, contrast, colour, movement [6][7][8], number of turbines [9][10][11], size of turbines [10,12] whether on-shore or off-shore [13] and the existing quality of the host landscape [14] • understanding of non-design variables such as conservation value of location or the planning process [15,16], broad social attitudes to wind energy [17,18] or behaviour (e.g. recreation) when exposed to wind energy facilities [19,20] • more systematic analysis tools which respect multiple criteria in either site selection [21][22][23][24][25], impact assessment [8,11,[26][27][28], historical changes in the landscape [29] or regional or national level impacts [30] • responses to visual simulations [31] • use of interactive virtual environments to facilitate interactive design [32] • changing attitudes as a result of familiarity [16,33] • deep convictions about nature, landscapes and seascapes [34] and cultural ecosystem services [35] • understanding the relationships between stakeholders in environmental conflicts…”

Visual Impact and Potential Visibility Assessment of Wind Turbines Installed in Turkey

“…Parallel to this development, to minimize visual effects in the siting of wind facilities is a substantially important issue for land management agencies. The visual effect is a visible feature of a wind farm on a slope or ridge line as a landscape [19][20][21][22][23]. The minimization of visual effects in the siting of wind facilities is a substantially important issue for land management.…”