The possibilities of the application of the Krajewski's method (2012) in the assessment of the impact of the wind investments on the landscape

• Autorzy: Orzechowska-Szajda I.D. , Mlynarczyk M. , Chmura K. , Piotrowski M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The dissertation attempts to determine the applicability of one of the newest assessment methods of the landscape capacity as a tool supporting the assessment of the investments' impact on the landscape. For the purpose of the research a Wind farm (PROMET-PLAST S.C.) was chosen, which is located in the Gaj Oławski village on a hill, at the Provincial Road No. 396, on the Oława-Strzelin route, Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Oława County. In the process of the assessment of the wind farm's impact on the landscape, the photographic documentation was used of the panoramas from 16 observation points designated in places where the visibility zone circle and the communication route cross. The Krajewski's method of the assessment of the landscape capacity was used (2012), which constituted the starting point for the studies. The following criteria for this assessment were adopted: the terrain construction, the land cover and visibility. The landscape capacity arising from the historical value (the higher the historical value, the lesser the landscape capacity), visual values (related to the topographic conditions) and the exposure (active and passive one) was examined. The method applied did not fully allow to determine the overall landscape capacity. However, its use during the phase of the investment preparation (the choice of location in the field), through the appropriate location depending on the type of landscape, topography, spatial relationships, can minimize the potential negative impact.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 27
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.1647-1658,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Orzechowska-Szajda I.D.

• Institute of Landscape Architecture, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences Grunwaldzka 55, 50-357 Wroclaw, Polska

autor

Mlynarczyk M.

• Environmental Management Department, Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland

autor

Chmura K.

• Institute of Landscape Architecture, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

autor

Piotrowski M.

• Institute of Landscape Architecture, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. SMART D.E., STOJANOVIC T. A., WARREN CH.R. Is EIA part of the wind power planning problem? Environ. Impact Asses. 49, 13, 2014.
• 2. BRIDGE G, BOUZAROVSKI S, BRADSHAW M, EYRE N. Geographies of energy transition: space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energ. Policy 53, 33, 2013.
• 3. PACHAURI R.K., REISINGER A. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 1, Switzerland, 2007.
• 4. JACOBSON M.Z., ARCHER C.L. Saturation wind power potential and its implications for wind energy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 (39), 15679, 2012.
• 5. TABASSUM-ABBAS I, PREMALATHA M., TASNEEM ABBAS, ABBASI S.A. Wind energy: Increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 31, 270, 2014.
• 6. TORRES SIBILLE A.C, CLOQUELL-BALLESTER V.A., CLOQUELL-BALLESTER V.A., DARTON R.C. Development and validation of a multicriteria indicador for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev 13, 40, 2009.
• 7. STRYJECKI M, MIELNICZUK K. Guidelines for forecasting impacts on environment of the wind farms, Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska, Departament Ocen Oddziaływania na Środowisko, Poland, 2011.
• 8. McGOWAN F., SAUTER R. Public opinion on energy research: A desk study for the research councils. England, 2005.
• 9. DEVINE-WRIGHT P. Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: A critical review. University of Manchester, England, 2007.
• 10. JONES C. R., EISER J. R. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local on shore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energ. Policy 37 (11), 4604, 2009.
• 11. SWIM J., CLAYTON S., DOHERTY T., GIFFORD R., HOWARD G., RESER J., STERN P., WEBER E. Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multifaceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change; USA, 2009.
• 12. KNOPPER L.D., OLLSON C.A., MCCALLUM L.C., WHITFIELD-ASLUND M.L., BERGER R.G., SOUWEINE K., McDANIEL M. Wind turbines and human health. Front. Public Health 2 (63), 2014.
• 13. MAEH A.M., WATTS G.R., HANRATTY J., TALMI D. Emotional response to images of wind turbines: A psychophysiological study of their visual impact on the landscape. Landscape Urban Plan. 142, 71, 2015.
• 14. PALMER J.F. Effect size as a basis for evaluating the acceptability of scenic impacts: Ten wind energy projects from Maine, USA. Landscape Urban Plan. 140, 56, 2015.
• 15. KONDILI E., KALDELLIS J.K. 2.16-Environmental-social benefits/impacts of wind power. In: SAYIGH A. (Ed.), Comprehensive renewable energy; 503, Netherlands, UK, USA, 2012.
• 16. WOLSINK M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energ. 21 (1), 49, 2000.
• 17. JONES C.R., EISER J.R. Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energ. Policy 38 (6), 3106, 2010.
• 18. RODRIGUES M., MONTAÑÉS C., FUEYO N. A method for the assessment of the visual impact caused by the large-scale deployment of renewable-energy facilities. Environ. Impact Asses. 30, 240, 2010.
• 19. DE VRIES S., DE GROOT M., BOERS J. Eyesores in sight: Quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 105 (1), 118, 2012.
• 20. MAFFEI L., IACHINI T., MASULLO M., ALETTA F., SORRENTINO F., SENESE V.P., RUOTOLO F. The effects of vision-related aspects on noise perception for wind turbines in quiet areas. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 10 (5), 1681, 2013.
• 21. WATTS G.R., PHEASANT R.J. Factors affecting tranquillity in the countryside. Appl. Acoust. 74 (9), 1094, 2013.
• 22. KROHN S., DAMBORG S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew. Energ. 16 (1), 954, 1999.
• 23. CASS N., WALKER G. Emotion and rationality: The characterisation and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emotion, Space and Society 2, 62, 2009.
• 24. BAKKER R.H., PEDERSEN E.B., VAN DEN BERG G.P., STEWART R.E., LOK W., BOUMA J. Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Sci. Total Environ. 425, 442, 2012
• 25. LEUNG D.Y.C., YUAN YANG. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: A review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev 16, 1031, 2012.
• 26. HURTADO J.P., FERNANDEZ J., PARRONDO J.L., BLANCO E. Spanish method of visual impact evaluation in wind farms. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev 8, 483, 2004.
• 27. MOLINA-RUIZ J., MARTÍNEZ-SÁNCHEZ M.J., PÉREZ-SIRVENT C., TUDELA-SERRANO M.L., LORENZO M.L.G. Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to evaluate visual impact in wind farms. Renew. Energ. 36, 1125, 2011.
• 28. SAIDUR R., RAHIM N.A., ISLAM M.R., SOLANGI K.H. Environmental impact of wind energy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev 15 (5), 2423, 2011.
• 29. FRANTA L.B., KUNC J. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes Czech experience. Ann. Tourism Res. 38 (2), 499, 2011.
• 30. PERCIVAL S.M. Bird and wind turbines in Britain. British Wildlife 12, 8, 2000.
• 31. PERCIVAL S.M. Novar Wind Farm proposed extension: ornithological assessment. Report to National Wind Power Ltd., Ireland, 2002.
• 32. CHYLARECKI P. Guidelines for assessing the impact of wind farms on birds. PSEW, Poland, 2008.
• 33. LUCA M., JANSS G., WHITFIELD D., RERRER M. Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. J. App. Ecol. 45 (6), 1695, 2008.
• 34. WUCZYŃSKI A. The impact of wind farms on birds. Types of interactions, their significance for bird populations and practice of research in Poland. Notatki Ornitologiczne 50, 206, 2009.
• 35. ARNOLD T.W., ZINK R.M. Collision mortality has no discernible effect on population trends of North American birds, PLoS 6 (9), 2011.
• 36. CHANG T., NIELSEN E., AUBERLE W., SOLOP F.I. A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments. Environ. Impact Asses. 38, 142, 2013.
• 37. TRYJANOWSKI P. Discussion materials on bird mortality caused by collisions with wind turbines. http://wyslijto.pl/download/xe1rw5xrtf, 2013.
• 38. BADORA K. Wind farms as elements that determine the structure and function of rural landscapes. Landscape Architecture 2, 60, 2013.
• 39. HAU E. Wind turbines. Springer, Germany, 2000.
• 40. MC DERMOTT M. Texas wind farm uses NASA radar to prevent bird deaths. Available from: http://www.treehugger. com/files/2009/05/texas-wind-farm-uses-nasa-radarprevent-bird-deaths.php , 2009.
• 41. THE GLOBAL WIND ENERGY COUNCIL (GWEC). Birds and bats. Available from: http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=144, 2010.
• 42. KNOPPER L.D., OLLSON C.A. Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature. Environ. Health 10 (78), 2011.
• 43. SHEPHERD D., MCBRIDE D., WELCH D., DIRKS K.N., HILL E.M. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health 13 (57), 333, 2011.
• 44. TORRANCE E.P., GOFF K. A quiet revolution. Engineering and Technology 10, 44, 2009.
• 45. FIUMICELLI D. Windfarm noise dose response: a literature review. Acoustics Bulletin 26, 2011.
• 46. LEE S, KIM K, CHOI W. Annoyance caused by amplitudę modulation of wind turbine noise. Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (1), 38, 2011.
• 47. PEDERSEN E. Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise. Results from three field studies. Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (1), 47, 2011.
• 48. MALCZYK T. Eco energy anthropopression in the landscape for example the wind park “Lipniki”, Landscape Architecture 3, 37, 2013.
• 49. ORZECHOWSKA-SZAJDA I., PODOLSKA A. Assessment criteria for the impact of large-scale investment on the landscape based on Visual Resource Management (VRM), Landscape Architecture 3, 66, 2013.
• 50. TSOUTSOS T., TSOUCHLARAKI A., TSIROPOULOS M., SERPETSIDAKIS M.. Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island. Appl. Energ. 86 (4), 546, 2009.
• 51. BACON W.R. The Visual Management System of the Forest Service, USDA. [In:] ELSNER, GARY H., SMARDON R.C., Proceedings of our national landscape. A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource April 23-25 1979, 660, USA, 1979.
• 52. ROSS R.W. The Bureau of Land Management and Visual Resource Management - An Overview [In:] ELSNER, GARY H., SMARDON R.C, Proceedings of our national landscape. A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource April 23-25 1979, 666, USA, 1979.
• 53. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT . Manual 8431 - Visual Resource Contrast Rating. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html, USA, 1980a.
• 54. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. Manual H-8410-1 - Visual Resource Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, USA, 1980b ..
• 55. BLOCKER L., SLIDER T., RUCHMAN J., MOSIER J., KOK L., SILBEMAGLE J., BEARD J., WAGNER D., BROGAN G., JONES D., LAUGHLINN N., ANDERSON L. Landscape Aesthetics (AH 701-f) - Scenery Management System Application (Chapter 5). USDA Forest Service, USA, 1995.
• 56. SWANWICK C. Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. UK, 2002.
• 57. ORZECHOWSKA-SZAJDA I. Visual Resource Management and its application in the assessment of the impact of large-scale investments on the landscape.. Available from: http://ochronaprzyrody.gdos.gov.pl/files/ artykuly/44524/Iwona_Orzechowska_Szajda.pdf, Poland, 2015.
• 58. BABAN S.M.J., PARRY T. Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to locating wind farms in the UK. Renew. Energ. 24, 59, 2001.
• 59. MÖLLER B. Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Appl. Energ. 83 (5), 477, 2006.
• 60. BAJEROWSKI T., SENATRA A., SZCZEPAŃSKA A. Wycena krajobrazu. Rynkowe aspekty oceny i waloryzacji krajobrazu. Poland, 2000.
• 61. BOGDANOWSKI J. . Method of architectural and landscape units and interiors (JARK-WAK) in studies and design.Politechnika Krakowska, Poland, 1999.
• 62. MYGA-PIĄTEK U. The Criteria and methods of the assessment of cultural landscape valorization in the process of spatial planning in view of effective legal procedures In: The Valorization of natural habitat in spatial planning. Kistowski M., Korwel-Lejkowska B. (Ed.) The Problems of Landscape Ecology – volume XIX. The Institute of Geography at Gdańsk University, The Polish Association of Landscape Ecology, The Committee „Human and Nature” The Presidium PAN. Gdańsk-Warszawa,101, Poland, 2007.
• 63. OZIMEK A, OZIMEK P., ŁABĘDŹ P. Scenic analyses with application of digital tools. Landscape Architecture 3, 4, 2012.
• 64. KRAJEWSKI P. Possible Applications of Landscape Capacity Assessment in Spatial Planning in Suburban Areas. Landscape Architecture 3, 22, 2012.
• 65. POTYRAŁA J., NIEDŹWIECKA-FILIPIAK I., ZIEMIAŃSKA M. Valorisation of views as an element of the landscape study on the example of community Paczków. Landscape Architecture 3, 13, 2012.
• 66. BADORA K. Methodology for assessing the impact of wind farms on the landscape. Available from: http://ochronaprzyrody.gdos.gov.pl/f iles/ar tykuly/44524/Krzysztof_Badora.pdf, Poland, 2015.
• 67. SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE. Visual assessment of windfarms: best practice. University of Newcastle; Scotland, 2002.
• 68. CHURCHWARD C., PALMER J.F., NASSAUER J.I., SWANWICK C.A. Evaluation of methodologies for visual impact assessments (NCHRP report 741). DC: National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board; USA, 2013.
• 69. PALMER J.F., HOFFMAN R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape Urban Plan. 54, 149, 2001.
• 70. JERPĹSEN G.B., LARSEN K.C. Visual impact of wind farms on cultural heritage: A Norwegian case study. Environ. Impact Asses. 31, 206, 2011.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15244/pjoes/77076