Next Article in Journal
Power Planning for a Reliable Southern African Regional Grid
Next Article in Special Issue
Latent Dirichlet Allocation in Public Procurement Documents Analysis for Determining Energy Efficiency Issues in Construction Works at Polish Universities
Previous Article in Journal
Overview of Integration of Power Electronic Topologies and Advanced Control Techniques of Ultra-Fast EV Charging Stations in Standalone Microgrids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Energy Transition of the Coal Region and Challenges for Local and Regional Authorities: The Case of the Bełchatów Basin Area in Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/en16031032
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Wind Energy Infrastructure and Socio-Spatial Conflicts

by
Agnieszka Rochmińska
Institute of the Built Environment and Spatial Policy, University of Lodz, 90-142 Lodz, Poland
Energies 2023, 16(3), 1032; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031032
Submission received: 6 December 2022 / Revised: 7 January 2023 / Accepted: 12 January 2023 / Published: 17 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Transition of the Energy Systems and the Development of Urban Functional Areas)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the article is to identify problems related to the siting of wind farms, both those that have arisen as a result of recent legislative revisions and those arising from social developments in Poland. In 2022 a map defining ‘exclusion zones’ around wind turbines, i.e., areas where residential development was prohibited, was released in Poland. It was only then that many territorial governments realised the scale of the problems generated by the entry into force of the 2016 Wind Farm Act. It turned out that this group of municipalities included towns that might suffer some consequences despite the fact that there are no or few wind farms in their area. The aim of this paper is to identify towns and cities where more than one quarter of the area is land within the H10 zones, where the construction of wind farms is banned, if their distance from the nearest building or from the boundary of a national park is less than ten times the height of the turbine mast. The example of the town and rural municipality of Darłowo shows that in the early phase of their construction in Poland, wind turbines were perceived positively and did not give rise to conflicts. It was only after some time, as existing wind farms started to be expanded and new ones built, that protests emerged. The arguments of the parties to the conflict focused mainly on economic considerations: profits for the municipality versus losses for the residents neighbouring the wind turbines, such as barriers to the development of agritourism. The conflicts were fuelled and prolonged by irregularities in the municipality’s planning documents and a poor flow of information about planned investments. In 2022, The Council of Ministers adopted a draft amendment to the Wind Farm Investment Act. This legislation represents a compromise between the opportunities for wind energy development and the needs of local communities.

1. Introduction

At present, both Poland as well as Europe and the world are facing the formidable challenge of the inevitable energy transition. On the one hand, we are facing rampant energy prices and the task of ensuring energy security; on the other, the state of environmental degradation and climate change require urgent changes and decisions. Wind energy, alongside other industries, needs to adapt to the general trend against climate change, including decarbonisation. This becomes particularly important in the light of efforts to significantly scale up wind projects and related industrial activities [1].
Since the late 20th century, the world has witnessed a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions as several economies have emerged as industrial centres and manufacturing giants. With global interest in clean energy development and campaigns for a sustainable climate and ecosystem, the role of emerging countries in the debate on energy transition and carbon neutrality by 2050 is very important (the so-called E7, leading emerging countries: Brazil, China, India Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Turkey) [2]. Emissions from several emerging economies currently account for the largest share of global carbon emissions, raising concerns about the prospects for achieving global environmental sustainability targets. Technological innovation and renewable energy sources put E7 on the path to environmental sustainability as it significantly reduces CO2 emissions. While both innovation and renewable energy consumption are conducive to sustainability, the magnitude of their desired environmental impact is quite low compared to the observed effects of damage caused by pollution due to observed economic growth driven by energy consumption [3].
The expansion of renewable energy in the EU is a strategic issue that simultaneously addresses several objectives: energy security, meeting Kyoto commitments and promotion of new technologies. The EU’s energy policy focuses on three main areas: increasing energy efficiency, developing energy from renewable sources, and diversifying external suppliers [4]. In terms of policy implications and recommendations, the EU should continue to increase the share of renewable energy and reduce the share of non-renewable energy for lower CO2 emissions. Policy makers should focus more on public awareness regarding renewable energy and a clean environment [5].
In 2011, the European Commission published a communication titled “Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050” in which it presented a cost-efficient plan for achieving 80–95% reductions in gas emissions [6]. The main legal act regulating the development of onshore wind energy in Poland is the Act of 20 February 2015 on Renewable Energy Sources (the RES Act) [7]. The Act implements the Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 into the Polish legal order [8] regarding the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. This Directive expired on 1 July 2021 and was replaced by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) [9].
In Poland, there is a strong influence of traditional fuel and energy companies on state policy. The development of RES is not in their interest, they support the construction of conventional power plants despite the fact that the country has a large potential for renewable energy development [10]. Since 2016, Poland has been facing numerous barriers preventing dynamic development of onshore wind energy. These include the distance rule, requirements concerning the connection of the project to the national power grid or environmental impact assessment. All issues regarding the role of the local community in the investment procedure are also important. According to the EU target binding for Poland to reduce emissions by 55% in 2030 compared to 1990, more than 18 GW of onshore wind power will be required [11].
Literature on spatial planning eagerly addresses issues linked to socio-spatial conflicts. Most such research takes the form of case studies and, typically, addresses conflicts that emerge in areas neighbouring development. The preparation and completion of wind farm projects is increasingly opposed by the communities which live in the vicinity of the potential site. Most siting-related conflicts stem from incompatibility between the goals and interests of individual stakeholders. This is because, while the benefits of a wind farm may be felt by wide-ranging groups of the public, the associated nuisances, if any, will be felt mainly by the local community. As is usually the case, the preparation and implementation of a wind farm project arouses great interest among the local community. The interest may turn into acceptance and support for the project or reluctance caused by fear of negative impacts and, consequently, attempts to block it.
The aim of the article is to identify problems related to the siting of wind farms that have arisen as a result of both legislative revisions and of social developments in Poland. In 2022 a map was released in Poland that defined ‘exclusion zones’ around wind turbines, i.e., areas where residential development was prohibited. It was only then that many local government authorities realised the scale of the problems generated by the entry into force of the 2016 Wind Farm Act. It turned out that the group of municipalities that could be affected also included towns and cities that either had the status of urban municipalities themselves, or were situated within wider urban-rural municipalities. Another aim of this paper is to identify cities where more than ¼ of the area is land subject to the H10 rule (ban on construction of wind farms if the distance from the nearest building or national park boundary is up to ten times the height of the turbine). The final section presents a case study of the Darłowo (Town or Borough) Municipality and of the Darłowo Rural Municipality, as well as an outline of the social and spatial conflicts related to the location of wind turbines within their respective areas. The article (given its limited size, but also the complexity of the issues) does not aspire to be an exhaustive presentation of the problems investigated, but rather seeks to identify important phenomena related to the siting and operation of wind power infrastructure in Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

Nowadays, three categories of wind energy technology are developing, which differ both in terms of the size of the equipment, location conditions and the way in which the electricity generated is managed. These are: onshore wind energy, offshore wind energy and distributed or small wind energy comprising individual wind turbines with a capacity not exceeding 100 kW (1 MW) [10]. This article focuses on the development of onshore wind energy.
Research on wind energy is conducted at various scales and from different angles. A wind farm consists of multiple turbines, which can be treated separately, as isolated points, if looked on at a detailed scale, or can be considered to form a power generation area or even a point power generation facility, if analysed at a small generalised scale [12]. Given their form, shape and size, wind farms arouse the most controversy of all RES-based power generation devices and installations [13]. Difficulties in the classification of the associated spatial conflicts are mainly caused by their variety, particular features, and thus their incomparability. In the literature on the subject, Von der Dunk et al. [14] distinguish four groups of publications dedicated to spatial conflict issues, one of which consists of case studies focused on in-depth analysis of individual conflicts (e.g., definition of mineral mining areas, siting of onerous activity). Socio-spatial conflicts related to wind farm siting should be included in this group.
Local community acceptance is a key influence on wind farm siting decisions. The findings reveal that community support for applications to repower or life-extend is influenced by experiences of living with the wind farm over time [15]. Whereas much social acceptance research is concerned with looking at a site at one moment in time, there is a small body of literature considering a wider temporal frame. A key argument emerging from such studies is that familiarity with a wind farm will positively influence people’s opinions [16,17]. It has been suggested that people living close to wind turbines perceive them more positively after installation [16,18] and that positive perceptions are more likely for those who see turbines daily [19].
On the basis of a literature review, Getor, R. Y. at al. [20] identified the following factors influencing public acceptance of onshore wind energy (onshore wind energy): sociopolitical, community, and market acceptance; geographical concepts; environmental concerns, closeness to wind farms; distance to turbines; regulations and incentives; site-specific factors; public general attitude; process-related factors; personal characteristics; perceived side effects; technical/geographical issues; environmental, economic, and social impacts; contextual factors.
Analyzing the literature, Westerlund, M. [21] identified various factors that influence the acceptance of wind energy systems: (1) social, (2) environmental, (3) economic, (4) technical, (5) institutional, (6) health, and (7) contextual. From the point of view of the issues raised in this article, research on social and institutional factors is relevant. Social factors are related to: social interaction; potential conflicts with others in the community; impact on the social image and attractiveness of the community; social welfare; community ties and trust toward unfamiliar actors such as energy developers; perception of peer acceptance of wind energy [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Institutional factors, in turn, include: political commitment; favorable regulations and legal frameworks; sufficient information sharing; transparency of governmental institutions and processes; prevalence or lack of innovative culture; engagement of local actors; public involvement in decision-making; perceived distributional fairness (how well the benefits, risks and costs are distributed within the community), procedural justice (how open, fair and unbiased the decision-making and planning processes are) [22,23,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
The shift towards renewable energy sources, including wind energy, has led to an increase in research interest in wind energy from a ‘public acceptance’ perspective. Low social acceptance results in delays, public protests, cost escalation, and sometimes the obstruction of wind energy projects [40,41], increasing the risk of failing to reach environmental policy goals [28]. The local acceptance may constrain our ability to achieve renewable energy targets, particularly in the case of wind energy [42] as local opposition is often considered as a central barrier to gaining permission for new wind farms [43].
The literature on the subject also comprises publications devoted to public protests against wind farms [13,18,19,44,45,46,47]. In Poland, the attitudes of local rural communities towards planned RES investments (including wind farms) have been studied by Graczyk [48]. Bednarek-Szczepańska [49] has focused on analysing previous local conflicts regarding the siting of wind farms. In addition, public attitudes to wind power in Poland have been studied by Marcinkiewicz and Poskrobko [50] and Słobodzian-Ksenicz et al. [51]. Source materials regarding conflicts around wind farm siting are gathered through various research techniques, including surveys of local press [49,50,51,52,53,54]; surveys of publications and portals devoted to wind energy [55]; surveys (questionnaires) of populations living in municipalities with wind turbines [48,51,56,57], and review of municipal documents compiled in the course of public consultations on wind farm siting [58].
In the first place, the study analyses the recent revisions of legislation relevant to the siting of wind turbines and the resultant ‘exclusion zones’ around wind turbines, as published on geoportal.gov.pl. There are 2478 municipalities in Poland (the lowest level of administrative division), including: rural 1514 (61.1%), urban and rural 662 (26.7%) and urban 302 (12.2%). As of 01.01.2022, there were 964 towns and cities. For towns and cities, the percentage of their area occupied by ‘exclusion zones’ was calculated based on data from geoportal.gov.pl [59] and www.polskawliczbach.pl/ (accessed on 25 October 2022) [60]. The focus is on identifying the cities that have had at least one quarter of their area covered by such zones. The ‘exclusion’ areas were then categorised into three groups based on their percentage of ‘exclusion’ areas: 25–49% (blue circles), 50–74% (purple circles), 75–100% (black circles) (Figure 1). Further on, the article presents a case study of the town and municipality of Darłowo. In order to identify conflict or problematic situations linked to wind farm location, the study involved a survey of articles in the local press in 2001–2022, including Dziennik Bałtycki (https://dziennikbaltycki.pl/, accessed on 25 October 2022 [61]) and its supplement, i.e., Dziennik Sławieński, and Echo Darłowa (http://www.infodarlowo.pl/, accessed on 25 October 2022) [62]. The number, location and height of turbine masts in the surveyed municipalities were identified from the Database of Topographic Objects (BDOT10k), which is a vector database containing the spatial location of topographic objects together with their basic descriptive characteristics. The scope of the ‘exclusion zones’ depends on these values and, as noted by McKenna et al. [63] the taller the wind turbines including rotor blades, the lower public acceptance.

3. Results

The development of wind energy, which is a renewable energy source (RES), depends on the legislation that governs such investments. In accordance with the Polish Renewable Energy Act, a RES is a source of non-fossil energy, including wind energy, solar energy, aerothermal energy, geothermal energy, hydrothermal energy, hydropower, wave, current and tidal energy, energy obtained from biomass, biogas, agricultural biogas and from bioliquids (Article 2, point 22) [7]. A wind farm is an RES installation build of a structural part, which consists of a structure within the meaning of the construction law, and of technical devices, including technical elements, in which electricity is generated from wind energy and which has a capacity greater than that of a microinstallation (i.e., greater than 50 kW) [64].
In Poland, wind energy has been developing since the early 1990s, when the first power generation wind turbine [65] was erected (1991) at the Hydroelectric Power Plant in Żarnowiec, currently known as the Lisewo Wind Farm. In 2001, the first professional wind farm (6 turbines with a total capacity of 5 MW) was commissioned in Barzowice, but it was only in 2005, when Poland put in place a green certificate scheme (The green certificate system operating in Poland since 2005 is a quantitative support mechanism for the production of electricity from renewable energy sources. This means that renewable energy producers receive the relevant certificates for every 1 MWh of electricity produced and fed into the network. Currently, the primary mechanism is the auction system of support for renewable energy source installations in which the first generation of electricity took place after 1 July 2016, can only benefit from the auction system), that investing in wind energy became economically viable. In addition to foreign investors, small and medium-sized Polish companies also emerged on the market.
According to Polskie Sieci Energetyczne (PSE), in 2006 (the first year when wind power generation was recorded in Poland), the production of energy by wind farms and other renewable sources amounted to 69 GWh, which accounted for 0.04% of nationwide production. Ever since, the value increased many times to reach 18,984 GWh (10.9%) in 2021 [66].
As at the end of August 2022, the installed electric capacity in the entire national power system was 59 GW (conventional energy and RES). The greatest amount of power was sourced from conventional thermal power plants (63.7%), photovoltaics (19.2%), while wind farms accounted for 13.3% of the total installed capacity (hydropower plants—1.7%, biomass plants—1.7%, biogas plants—0.5%). At present, the installed capacity of renewable energy sources (RES) is 20.9 GW, of which photovoltaics account for 53%, wind farms for 37%, hydropower for 5%, biomass for 4%, and biogas for 1% (as of August 2022) [67].
According to data from the Energy Regulatory Office, at the end of 2020, there were 1239 wind farms active in Poland, including 1111 installations with a capacity of less than 10 MW (89.7%) and 128 with a capacity greater than or equal to 10 MW. The Potęgowo WF (219 MW), commissioned in December 2020, ranks first among the Polish wind farms in capacity terms. Located in the Pomorskie and Zachodniopomorskie Provinces, it consists of 81 turbines. The owner is the Israeli Mashav Energia fund (Table 1).
Taking up and running a renewable power generation business requires a permit, except where electricity is generated in a micro- or small installation. A small renewable energy installation is defined as one having a total installed electricity capacity of more than 50 kW and not more than 1 MW (Article 2, point 18), while a microinstallation as an installation with a total installed capacity of not more than 50 kW (Article 2, point 19) [7].
Small RES installations (MIOZE) benefit from preferences—simplified formalities related to their commissioning. Operating a small renewable energy installation does not require a permit, but instead registration with the Small Installation Generation Register kept by the President of the Energy Regulatory Office (ERO). The last quarter of 2021 saw major redefinition of a small renewable energy installation. Until 30 October 2021, RES installations had qualified as small if they had a total installed electricity capacity between 50 kW and 500 kW. The entry into force of the amended act expanded the range of installations eligible for preferential treatment by doubling the installed capacity ceiling from 500 kW to 1 MW. The extension of the group of small installations that could be operated subject to registration rather than a permit means that comparing data on small installations from the above report to those from last year’s report would be misleading. Importantly, not only have the new brackets of total installed electricity capacity triggered a growth in the number of small RES installations, but they have also reshuffled the shares of the various types of such installations in the total number of all small renewable power installations. On the other hand, the one-off change in the definition whereby the cap on the total installed capacity of a RES installation eligible for registration will translate into a noticeable year-on-year increase in the number and installed capacity of small RES installations, which will not reflect the actual market situation [69].
At the municipality level, in order to define the spatial policy of a municipality, including the rules for local planning, in line with the Spatial Planning and Development Act, two documents are prepared: a municipal urban development study (Polish “studium uwarunkowań i kierunków zagospodarowania przestrzennego gminy”), which is obligatory, and a zoning plan (Polish “miejscowy plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego”), which is an optional act of local law. In the absence of a zoning plan, the principles of land development and the underlying conditions are set out by way of a planning permission (Polish “decyzja o warunkach zabudowy i zagospodarowania terenu”), except that the siting of a public utility investment is set out by way of a public-purpose investment siting permit (Polish “decyzja o lokalizacji inwestycji celu publicznego”). For other investments, the manner in which land can be developed and the associated conditions are likewise established by way of a planning permission (Polish “decyzja o warunkach zabudowy”) (Article 4.2) [70]
The development of the Polish wind power sector has been influenced by the Wind farm Investment Act (also known as the ‘Distance Act’), which entered into force on 16 July 2016 [64]. The Act was enacted as a consequence of strong opposition to the construction of wind turbines, e.g., too close to residential buildings, which was fuelled by the stopwiatrakom.eu portal. Pursuant to the Act, a wind farm may only be sited on the basis of a zoning plan, while earlier this had also been possible under a planning permission (WZ). The Act established the minimum distance between a wind farm and the nearest residential building and between a wind farm and a nature conservation area (national park, nature reserve, landscape park, Natura 2000 area) (Article 6.1.) [71] and/or protected forest complex (Article 13b.1) (In order to promote sustainable forest management and conservation of natural resources in forests, the Director-General of the State Forests may, by way of an order, establish what is referred to as ‘promotional forest complexes’. Promotional forest complexes are functional areas of environmental, educational and social value, with regard to which management activities are defined by a ‘single economic and protection programme [72]). The distance should be equal to or greater than ten times the height of the wind turbine measured from the ground level to the highest point of the structure, including the technical elements, in particular the rotor with blades (10H rule). The Act obliges the authorities that issue an environmental permit (In accordance with § 2(1)(5) of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers on projects that may have a significant impact on the environment, installations using wind power for the generation of electricity with a total nominal capacity of at least 100 MW and located in the maritime areas of the Republic of Poland are among the projects that may always have a significant impact on the environment (Group I projects), and it is mandatory to conduct an environmental impact assessment for them [73]) (Polish “decyzja o środowiskowych uwarunkowaniach”) to examine, if they are minded to issue the decision, whether the wind farm investment complies with the above requirements, in particular the 10H rule. If it does not comply with the minimum distance requirements, the authority will refuse to issue a permit [11].
The central regulation for the location of renewable energy sources is the Act of 27 March 2003 on Spatial Planning and Development [70]. Pursuant to Article 10(2a) of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development, if it is envisaged in the area of a municipality to designate areas where devices generating energy from renewable energy sources with an installed capacity of more than 500 kW will be located, together with their protection zones related to restrictions on building and land use and development, their location shall be determined in the zoning plan. Already at the stage of adopting the zoning plan, which is the fundamental and only obligatory planning document, areas allowing for the location of RES of an appropriate capacity should be provided for.
In addition, Article 15(3)(3a) of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development stipulates that the local zoning plan may include the boundaries of areas for the construction of the facilities referred to in Article 10(2a) of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development (investments in renewable energy sources) and the boundaries of their protection zones related to restrictions on building, development and use of the land and the occurrence of significant environmental impact of such facilities. This type of regulation in the zoning plan itself is optional, but investments, including the construction of wind farms, cannot be carried out without it. It is, however, the core that prevents the location and operation of RES investments without a local zoning plan. This regulation has significantly inhibited the construction of wind farms (in combination with the Act of 20 May 2016 on wind power investments [64].
Due to the obligation to locate wind turbines only on the basis of a local zoning plan, land owners will not be surprised that wind farms are being built on neighboring properties. On the other hand, however, given the rather small number of zoning plans, the complicated procedure for their issuance and the possibility to amend them, RES in the form of at least wind farms will not, without a change in the law, have a major impact on the energy market in Poland. A conflict arises here between spatial management and the quite fast acquisition of energy [49]. This is all the more important if we add the impact of local plan regulations on environmental and climate protection [74]. It should be added that the distance law on the one hand protects spatial order by preventing the siting of wind farms too close to buildings but on the other hand it prevents the development of RES investments.
The most important changes effected by the Act include:
–
prohibiting the siting of new residential buildings at a distance less than 10 times the height of the wind turbine;
–
the prohibition on new wind farms in the vicinity of residential buildings means that new wind farms cannot be constructed within a radius of 10 times of their height from existing or planned residential buildings;
–
wind farms can no longer be built on the basis of a building permission (WZ), but only on the basis of local zoning plans (MPZP),
–
all decisions regarding wind farms issued prior to the date of entry into force of the Act became null and void (except where the procedure for the issuance of a building permit was initiated before the date of entry into force of the Act),
Following the implementation of the Act, a transitional period is envisaged in the absence of a zoning plan, until 16 July 2019, investors could apply for a planning permission (WZ), and not having one, they would not be allowed to develop a residential building within the H10 zone (many plot owners were unaware of the new regulations and did not apply for permission. Pursuant to Wind Farm Investment Act [64], municipalities had to enact prior to 16 July 2022 new local zoning plans or make amendments to the zoning plans in force on the date of enactment of the Act, allowing residential development bypassing the 10H rule (on the basis of these local plans municipalities may issue building permits, applicable to residential development). However, under the law, the enacted local zoning plan must be consistent with the ‘Study’, but the legislature failed to provide for the application of the existing rules for its enactment. This means that a new study cannot be enacted in disregard of Rule 10H, and the local zoning plan must be consistent with its provisions (legislative contradiction).
Due to frequent revisions of wind farm siting legislation, the authorities of some municipalities, residents and investors from the wind energy industry have had to face problems.
Since July 2019, planning permissions (WZ), e.g., for houses on plots situated at a distance of less than ten times the height of the wind turbine, can no longer be issued. A planning permission could only be obtained if a zoning plan was adopted quickly—the deadline for adopting plans elapsed in July 2022.
In accordance with the Act, the so-called ‘exclusion zones’, i.e., areas subject to exclusion from investments due to the presence of wind turbines with a capacity of 1 MW, have been defined around wind turbines. As a consequence, given that most wind farms built currently in Poland have a total height of approx. 200 m, their distance from the buildings must be at least 2000 m. As has been calculated by the Wysokie Napięcie website [75] on the basis of data of the government’s Geoportal [59], currently, 6312 km2 (2%) of Poland’s territory is excluded from residential development due to the ‘Anti-Wind Farm Act’. The greatest number of areas where no new buildings can be erected are concentrated in the Kujawsko-Pomorskie (1050 km2), Zachodniopomorskie (931 km2) and Łódzkie (802 km2) Provinces, followed by the Wielkopolskie, Pomorskie and Mazowieckie regions. The impact of the problem is smallest on Małopolska Province, where wind turbines are few and far between [76].
The analysis of ‘exclusion zones’ around wind turbines conducted as part of the present study reveals that Poland has 44 towns and cities with more than 25% of their area covered by them. Towns and cities of this type are located mainly in central Poland: in a stretch of land extending along the western border of the Łódzkie Province and near the border of the Wielkopolskie and Kujawsko-Pomorskie Provinces [Figure 1]. The above regions abound in such towns and cities, with Wielkopolskie having 14, Kujawsko-Pomorskie 8, Łódzkie 7, and Zachodniopomorskie 5 of them. Of all the towns and cities identified, only 13 have wind farms within their respective areas: Piotrków Kujawski (12), Szadek (9), Nieszawa (6), Kłobuck (4), Saniki and Kietrz (2 each), and the remaining towns and cities have one wind farm each. Most of them are the capitals of urban-rural municipalities (36), while Sanok, Grajewo, Kłobuck, Trzemeszno, Słupca, Nieszawa, Radziejów and Darłowo (8) are urban municipalities.
Darłowo (the town) is an urban municipality with an area of 20.2 km2 inhabited by approx. 13,300 people (660 people/km2), while the area surrounding the town forms the rural municipality of Darłowo, which has an area of 269.5 km2 and a population of approx. 7500 (30 people/km2). Both municipalities lie in the easternmost area of the Zachodniopomorskie Province, in the Sławno Poviat, on the Baltic Sea. Given their coastal location and favourable weather (wind) conditions, they represent attractive areas for the development of wind farms. Since the 1990s, they have been of interest to wind energy investors, which have built a total of 118 wind turbines in the rural area of the municipality. Although none of the turbines has been put up in the urban area, 1/3 of the city has come to be covered by ‘exclusion zones’ around the wind turbines (Figure 2).
In the years 1999–2002, three wind farms were built in the villages of Cisowo, Kopań and Barzowice near Darłowo, which was because of the very favourable wind conditions in these locations. The first wind power station, consisting of 5 wind turbines, each with a capacity of 132 KW (0.66 MW in total), was built in Cisowo, the second, comprising 6 turbines with a capacity of 833 KW (4.998 MW in total)—in Góra Barzowicka, while the third, largest one, comprising 9 turbines, each with a capacity of 2 MW (18 MW in total)—in the fields off the villages of Cisowo and Kopań. Altogether, the three wind farms built in the Darłowo area consisted of 20 turbines whose capacity totalled 23.7 MW. Other companies, which had already bought the land for development, were preparing to build new plants with another 70 wind turbines [77]. The Polish wind farm company Enerco, in partnership with a Chicago-based US company, was to be the investor of the wind farm complex. The entire project, known as the Darłowo Energy Centre, was to be completed in 2013. In addition, 16 more wind turbines were to be put up in the neighbouring municipality of Malechowo.
In the Darłowo Municipality, ten wind parks, which comprise a total of 112 wind turbines that produce 259 [MW] of electricity are managed by the Wind Service Company. Most of the turbines, which currently make up seven of the Wind Parks, started producing energy in 2012. In Cisowo, which is the oldest Park, electricity had already been produced since 2001, while in the Porzecze Park, it started to be generated in 2014 and in the Gorzyca Park (installations in two municipalities)—in 2015 (Table 2).
An analysis of the map with the wind turbines around which ‘exclusion zones’ were defined in the Darłowo municipality, shows that there are 118 wind turbines in the municipality. Almost half of them (48.3%) have a height of 150 m and more, 23% rise up to 135 or 145 m, and 23.7% measure 119, 120, 122 m in height. Only 5 turbines (4.2%) are low-rise installations (50 m high). The tallest structures are clustered in the western part of the municipality, in the vicinity of the towns of Dobiesław, Wiekowice, Wiekowo, and in the eastern part, near Stary Jarosław, Nowy Jarosław, and Sińcza (Table 3).
In 2010–2011, the main conflicts concerned the area of the existing wind farm outside the village of Cisowa and its intended expansion, and involved the local residents led by the civil parish executive officer (sołtys), on the one hand, and the Mayor of the Rural Municipality of Darłowo, on the other.
The residents who opposed the construction of the turbines argued that it would have a negative impact on the development of agritourism (especially in areas close to the sea), would impede residential development (difficulties in obtaining planning permission), and would generate noise (humming).
The Mayor of the Darłowo Municipality denied the allegations, claiming that residents had been supportive of wind turbines before the completion of the project, the people who had acquired land and requested it to be reclassified as building plots had been granted the requests, that the wind farm would generate profits for the municipality (increased real estate tax revenues) and will translate into more investments, e.g., in the municipality’s infrastructure (e.g., repair and construction of roads).
The conflicts also brought to light spatial planning irregularities in the municipality, namely two contradictory local zoning plans being operational within the area of the civil parish (which the Mayor did not consider a problem).
In 2013–2016, a conflict ignited in another part of the municipality (in the area of Wiekowo, Kowalewice, Stary Jarosław) after wind turbines had been erected. The local population, represented by the Association for the Residents of the Darłowo Municipality, demanded that the plant off Stary and Nowy Jarosław (near Pątnów) be dismantled. They put forward similar arguments, i.e., that it was too close to the buildings (within 400 m), that no houses could be built within the vicinity of the plant, that it generated noise, that it was a barrier to the development of agritourism, and that it affected property prices across the municipality. They maintained that at least some of the wind turbines were erected illegally on the basis of zoning plans considered invalid by a court (decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, which questioned the zoning plan under which the wind turbines were built). They pointed out that the Mayor had prepared a new zoning plan by means of which he intended to legalise what had been done before (they claimed that they did not know who had prepared the draft plan, who had consulted it, who had signed it, which is why they were protesting) (Table 4).
Those against the construction or operation of the wind turbines organised picket lines, meetings with the authorities, brought the irregularities to the attention of other institutions, such as the Building Inspectorate, and even went to court.
The Mayor counterargued that the 400-m distance had already been foreseen in the 2005 documents and no one had been questioning it at that time. He maintained that, even though the zoning plan had been questioned, the study remained valid. He stressed that the municipality owed a number of other investments and benefits to the wind turbines, such as the construction of a sewer system and subsidies for schools. At the same time, the Mayor agreed with the residents that there were too many turbines and declared that no more would be built.
In 2022, attention has been drawn to another problem related to the existence of wind turbines in the seaside towns of Cisowo and Kopań near Darłowo, where dozens of buildings have been erected contrary to the law, which provides that no buildings can be erected in the vicinity of wind turbines. The Poviat Building Inspector in Sławno has provided information that some of the structures were constructed under the so-called ‘notification procedure’ (no requirement for a planning permission), some have been issued a planning permission, and some are caravans (some of the buildings have been ordered to be demolished). This situation suggests running disagreements between the municipal authorities and the building inspectorate. In Poland, municipal authorities inspect buildings for compliance with the zoning plan, and if they notice irregularities or are notified of them by residents, they request the competent building inspectorate to check whether the investment concerned is consistent with the plan, which is time-consuming. The authorities are also required to withhold the supply of electricity and water to plots with non-compliant buildings. Attention is also drawn to the problem of rubbish and rubbish removal charges. The Mayor stresses system flaws, arguing that the regulations do not make it clear what an unauthorised construction and a mobile home are. The building inspector adds that the law does not specify what ‘spoiling the landscape’ would mean [79].
In 2022, a new spatial development study was adopted for the Municipality of Darłowo (the work had taken 2.5 years). In the course of the procedure, nearly 2500 requests and 700 objections from private parties were examined in the follow-up of wide-ranging public consultations organised in several towns. The entire area of the municipality is covered with a zoning plan, which has influenced the work on the study [80].

4. Discussion

Factors relevant to the rollout of wind power (Critical issues and success factors for different new energy technologies). Key problems and uncertainties: siting issues, land-use intensity, local costs and benefits and their equitable distribution, diverging views on landscape preservation, concerns about health and environmental impacts, system operation concerns (intermittency). Factors likely to promote success: adaptation to local context, management of local benefits and drawbacks, involving local residents in the process [81].
The public may oppose not only projects that clearly degrade the environment, but also those that are supposed to protect it, including installation of renewable energy sources, especially wind power. These conflicts are of different nature and have different underlying reasons, with landscape conservation, health protection, and financial issues coming to the fore [82]. It should be noted that gaining insight into the attitudes of the local population towards wind farms entails identifying people’s perception of changes in the landscape and is of great importance not only in practical but also in theoretical terms. Research conducted in Sweden [83] implies that opposition to wind farms may stem from just a few factors, which are strongly tied to the perception of scenery. They include the sense of changes in the unity of the landscape, people’s personal attitudes to changes in the aesthetics of the surroundings, and the possibilities of responding to such changes, as well as attitudes towards wind power in general. It follows from the example of Darłowo that landscape changes are not only associated with the construction of wind turbines, which are conspicuous landmarks, but also to building development activity in their vicinity (whether lawful or not).
Kistowski, Kupska and Wiklent [12] define the impact of onshore wind farms on the features of sustainable space as moderate (as regards the impact on spatial order, landscape quality, openness of space, maintaining spatial connectivity of ecosystems and spatial integration of rural functions), weak (on multifunctionality of space, transport efficiency in space, preservation of natural values) and negligible/neutral (on energy efficiency of space and spatial integration of city functions).
In his publications on the difficulties associated with the completion of wind farm projects, Wolsink [44,84] proposes a typology of social opposition to energy projects, in which he distinguishes:
A—a positive general attitude towards a given energy source combined with opposition to the construction of an installation in the area where the protester against the proposed siting resides;
B—non-acceptance of and opposition to investments in the vicinity, resulting from complete rejection of a given type of energy source.
C—a positive attitude towards a given energy source, which turns negative as a result of discourse on the proposed investment.
D—opposition resulting from the fact that specific projects have proven defective, without rejection of the type of source concerned. Opposing residents may not be convinced about the suitability of the chosen location, because they expect difficulties for residents, or they may feel that the natural environment at the selected site is too vulnerable to damage, especially if other locations available nearby seem better.
The residents of the Darłowo Municipality have stressed an adverse effect on tourism, or strictly speaking agritourism (the municipality is a rural area), drawing attention to difficulties in obtaining a building permit, the spoiling of the landscape, and noise. In Poland, wind power projects are often sited in areas that are very attractive to tourists, for instance off the Baltic coast. As some researchers see it, wind farms can also be a tourist attraction, especially in areas where this power generation method is still a novelty, e.g., in Central and Eastern Europe [85], including Poland. They often become a landmark so easily recognisable that they become a kind of ‘postcard’ for the area [86].
Research by Sæþórsdóttir et al. [87] has found an adverse effect of wind farms on nature tourism. The tourist industry interests that were surveyed have identified the following factors as crucial for the suitable siting of wind farms: the visibility of wind turbines, the number of visitors and attractions in the area, the degree of naturalness of the area, and local energy needs. The study identifies five factors behind the severity of the negative impact of wind farms on nature tourism according to the tourist industry: wind turbines should not be sited in places (1) where they would be conspicuous, (2) where many tourists pass through, (3) with (many) tourist attractions, (4) characterised by pristine nature, and (5) which are in no need of increased electricity production.
Many authors [88,89,90,91] claim that the low level of public acceptance and strong opposition to wind energy is mainly attributable to the lack of coherent educational policies at the local and central government levels. In addition, public support for wind energy has been significantly undermined by small, often very aggressive, wind power development companies, which have acted unprofessionally and even on the verge of the law [90].
Solving wind farm siting problems requires empowering local community groups in decision-making processes, and actions taken to solve siting problems should primarily lead to the activation of those local community members who do not oppose the disputed project. It is also necessary to create conditions that enable local communities to influence the investment preparation process. To this end, it is essential that the conditions created be such as to ensure that representatives of the local community are engaged in the preparation of the project at a very early stage of the investment process, that access to information is guaranteed, that the public is consulted, that proposals from local communities are collected, and that the opinions of the public are taken into account at the investment preparation stage [92].

5. Conclusions

Recent legislative developments in the area of investments in renewable energy, especially wind power, have resonated widely in Polish society. On the one hand, the revisions have responded to the pressure of some groups who were dissatisfied with the earlier solutions that, inter alia, allowed wind turbines to be constructed too close—as the opponents maintained—to residential buildings. On the other hand, the new siting regulations adopted as a consequence of those objections, notably the H10 rule, have, in turn, stirred into action opponents of such far-going restrictions. The strongest opposition has been voiced by the local authorities of the administrative units whose areas, or strictly speaking a large proportion of them, have come to be covered by an ‘exclusion zone’.
On 5 July 2022, The Council of Ministers adopted a draft amendment to the Wind Farm Investment Act [64], submitted by the Minister of Climate and Environment. This legislation represents a compromise between the opportunities for wind energy development and the needs of local communities. Currently, the government’s draft amendment to the Wind Farm Investment Act (the so-called Wind Farm Act) is in the Parliament. It stipulates that the decision on the possibility of locating new onshore wind farms and unblocking the possibility of residential development in the vicinity of these plants will be up to the municipalities.
The public debate brings attention to the problems for the development of municipal areas if the law does not change. The government has drafted new legislation, which puts an end to the H10 rule, and instead foresees a distance of 500 m, which, naturally, is not to everyone’s liking. Already today, there are a number of municipalities that are waiting for this amendment to be enacted in order to proceed with changing their plans and start building wind farms. At the same time, the legislator is postponing the introduction of this amendment, and there is quite a lively debate about increasing the 500 m distance [93].
In the context of planning, it is important to consider the constraint of the 10H rule, which excludes 99.7 per cent of Poland’s area from wind investments [94]. Liberalising it in the shape resulting from the “Nature Conservation” scenario makes it possible to increase the availability of land to 7.08 per cent, witch is over 25 times. At the same time, it is worth emphasising that attractive areas in the north of the country, in particular in the Pomeranian and West Pomeranian Provinces, may be unblocked [1]. The above conclusions are also confirmed by a comprehensive study of wind farm location conditions conducted by a team from the Institute of Environmental Protection—Public Research Institute (IOŚ-PIB)—The Institute of Environmental Protection-National Research Institute (IEP-NRI). The buffers adopted in the analysis exclude 93.9% (1 km buffer) and 99.1% (2 km buffer) of the area of Poland from the possibility of investing in wind farms, respectively, and are therefore essentially equivalent to a location ban [95].
One problematic issue is whether or not to standardize the location distance of residential developments from wind turbines (and vice versa). In most countries, the determination of the minimum distance of wind turbines from residential development is based on simulations of the extent of noise in the environment. However, despite the simulations carried out, non-exceedable minimum values still apply in some countries. In some countries these values are mandatory, while in others they are negotiable at local law level. For example, the minimum distance in Belgium (Wallonia) and Denmark is 4H, 10H in Bavaria (Germany), 6H (or 500 m) in Italy, 500 m in Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland and Lithuania, 400 ÷ 600 m in the Netherlands (depending on the region), 750 ÷ 1200 m in Austria (depending on the region), 1000 m in Germany (The distance recommended by the federal government, which can be reduced by the provisions of local law of the federal state) and Romania (Distance recommended by national regulations, which can be reduced on the basis of noise simulations carried out). The minimum distance adopted in Hungary (12 km) excludes in practice the possibility of investing in onshore wind energy in that country. In some countries, such as Belgium (Flanders), Finland, Norway, Sweden and the UK, there is no specified minimum distance in national legislation. In many countries, the minimum considered distances between wind turbines and human settlements are only recommendations and have not been introduced by general law. In many cases, the authority to decide on the location of wind farms lies with local governments and communities [1].
An analysis of the presence of ‘exclusion zones’ shows that, although most wind turbines are located in rural areas, the problem also concerns cities. Although some of them do not host wind turbines, the H10 rule makes some of their area fall within the range of impact of the turbines and consequently makes them subject to the resultant land development restrictions, which may lead to conflicts within their own area. It can be concluded from the considerations presented in this article that, in addition to paying attention to the siting of wind turbines within their own boundaries, towns and cities should also—if not predominantly—seek to ensure that turbines are situated at an appropriate distance from their administrative borders. The authorities of urban municipalities should be more careful in looking after their own interests by monitoring the activities of their neighbours, and urban-rural municipalities should have better planning policies, taking into account the context of their own core area—the town or city (the example of Darłowo shows this).
The example of the town and the rural municipality of Darłowo shows that in the early phase of their construction in Poland, wind turbines were perceived positively and did not give rise to conflicts. It was only after some time, as existing wind farms started to be expanded and new ones built, that protests emerged. In the case of the Municipality of Darłowo, protests started after the wind turbines had already been completed, with the residents demanding some of them to be dismantled. The arguments of the parties to the conflict focused mainly on economic considerations—profits for the municipality v. losses for the residents neighbouring the wind turbines. The conflicts were exacerbated and prolonged by irregularities in the municipality’s planning documents and poor communication of information about planned investments.
The applied research methods confirmed the necessity of legislative changes with regard to the location of wind farms in Poland, particularly in the context of liberalizing the H10 rule and freeing up land for wind energy development and at the same time for housing; increasing public participation in investment planning (strengthening the social factor, limiting and weakening conflict situations); strengthening the influence on location decisions of neighboring communes’ self-governments, and of neighboring residents regardless of the administrative affiliation of their place of residence (spheres of influence, not administrative boundaries, should be taken into account).
The changes and related experiences taking place in Poland make it possible to assess the cause-and-effect relationship and can serve as an example for countries and regions where such regulations are under discussion, development or change.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The article was written in accordance with ethical principles. The analysis was carried out on the basis of e.g., https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/ [62].

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jasiński, A.W.; Kacejko, P.; Matuszczak, K.; Szulczyk, J.; Zagubień, A. Elektrownie wiatrowe w środowisku człowieka. In Monografie Komitetu Inżynierii Środowiska; PAN: Lublin, Poland, 2022; Volume 178. [Google Scholar]
  2. Onifade, S.T.; Alola, A.A. Energy transition and environmental quality prospects in leading emerging economies: The role of environmental-related technological innovation. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 1766–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Onifade, S.T.; Bekun, F.V.; Phillips, A.; Altuntaş, M. How do technological innovation and renewables shape environmental quality advancement in emerging economies: An exploration of the E7 bloc? Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 2002–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bengochea, A.; Faet, O. Renewable Energies and CO2 Emissions in the European Union. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2012, 7, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dogan, E.; Seker, F. Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European Union: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy. Renew. Energy 2016, 94, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Counncil, the Europen Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, COM(2011) 0112. Available online: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/20756/THINK_topic3_online.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 25 December 2022).
  7. Renewable Energy Sources Act of 20 February 2015 elaborated on the basis of: Consolidated text in Dz. U. of 2022, Item 1378, 1383, 2370. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20220001378/U/D20221378Lj.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  8. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance). Document 32009L0028. L 140/16. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  9. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (Text with EEA relevance.). PE/48/2018/REV/1. Document 32018L2001. L 328/82. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.328.01.0082.01.ENG (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  10. Badora, K. Społeczna percepcja energetyki wiatrowej na przykładzie farmy wiatrowej Kuniów. Proc. ECOpole 2017, 11, 463–470. [Google Scholar]
  11. Polska Energetyka Wiatrowa 4.0; TPA Poland/Baker Tilly TPA: Warsaw, Poland, 2022.
  12. Kistowski, M.; Kupska, K.; Wiklent, G. Wpływ infrastruktury elektroenergetycznej na zrównoważone planowanie i zagospodarowanie przestrzenne w Polsce na przykładach z woj. pomorskiego/The Impacts of Electric Power Infrastructure on Sustainable Spatial Planning and Development in Poland on the Examples of Pomorskie Voivodeship. Biuletyn KPZK 2014, 254, 129–149. Available online: https://journals.pan.pl/Content/82839/mainfile.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2022).
  13. Pasqualetti, M.J. Morality, space, and the power of wind-energy landscapes. Geogr. Rev. 2010, 90, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Von Der Dunk, A.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Dalang, T.; Hersperger, A.M. Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts—A case study from Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Windemer, R. Acceptance should not be assumed. How the dynamics of social acceptance changes over time, impacting onshore wind repowering. Energy Policy 2023, 173, 113363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Warren, C.R.; Lumsden, C.; O’Dowd, S.; Birnie, R.V. ‘Green on green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 2005, 48, 853–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wheeler, R. Reconciling Windfarms with Rural Place Identity: Exploring Residents’ Attitudes to Existing Sites. Sociol. Rural. 2017, 57, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Krohn, S.; Damborg, S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew. Energy 1999, 16, 954–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2705–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Getor, R.Y.; Ramudhin, A.; Keivanpour, S. Social acceptability of a wind turbine blade facility in Kingston upon hull. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Westerlund, M. Social Acceptance of Wind Energy in Urban Landscapes. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2020, 10, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sovacool, B.K.; Ratan, P.L. Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar electricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 5268–5279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hall, N.; Ashworth, P.; Devine-Wright, P. Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy 2013, 58, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yuan, X.; Zuo, J.; Huisingh, D. Social acceptance of wind power: A case study of Shandong Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Walker, C.; Stephenson, L.; Baxter, J. “His main platform is ‘stop the turbines’”: Political discourse, partisanship and local responses to wind energy in Canada. Energy Policy 2018, 123, 670–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Suškevičs, M.; Eiter, S.; Martinat, S.; Stober, D.; Vollmer, E.; de Boer, C.; Buchecker, M. Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation? Land Use Policy 2018, 81, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Diógenes, J.R.F.; Claro, J.; Rodrigues, J.C.; Loureiro, M.V. Barriers to onshore wind energy implementation: A systematic review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 60, 101337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cohen, J.J.; Reichl, J.; Schmidthaler, M. Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review. Energy 2014, 76, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Walker, B.J.; Wiersma, B.; Bailey, E. Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: An experimental study in England. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khorsand, I.; Kormos, C.; MacDonald, E.G.; Crawford, C. Wind energy in the city: An interurban comparison of social acceptance of wind energy projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 8, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Langer, K.; Decker, T.; Roosen, J.; Menrad, K. A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Scherhaufer, P.; Höltinger, S.; Salak, B.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Schmidt, J. Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 863–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sonnberger, M.; Ruddat, M. Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany. Technol. Soc. 2017, 51, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Johansen, K.; Emborg, J. Wind farm acceptance for sale? Evidence from the Danish wind farm co-ownership scheme. Energy Policy 2018, 117, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hoen, B.; Firestone, J.; Rand, J.; Elliot, D.; Hübner, G.; Pohl, J.; Wiser, R.; Lantz, E.; Haac, T.R.; Kaliski, K. Attitudes of U.S. Wind Turbine Neighbors: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey. Energy Policy 2019, 134, 110981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vuichard, P.; Stauch, A.; Dällenbach, N. Individual or collective? Community investment, local taxes, and the social acceptance of wind energy in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 58, 101275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1378–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Caporale, D.; Sangiorgio, V.; Amodio, A.; De Lucia, C. Multi-criteria and focus group analysis for social acceptance of wind energy. Energy Policy 2020, 140, 111387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jørgensen, M.L.; Anker, H.T.; Lassen, J. Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes. Energy Policy 2020, 138, 111294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. D’souza, C.; Yiridoe, E.K. Social acceptance of wind energy development and planning in rural communities of Australia: A consumer analysis. Energy Policy 2014, 74, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reusswig, F.; Braun, F.; Heger, I.; Ludewig, T.; Eichenauer, E.; Lass, W. Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende. Util. Policy 2016, 41, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Landeta-Manzano, B.; Arana-Landín, G.; Calvo, P.M.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance. Energy Policy 2018, 121, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wolsink, M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000, 21, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wolsink, M. Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2006, 31, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bell, D.; Gray, T.; Haggett, C. The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 460–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kempton, W.; Firestone, J.; Lilley, J.; Rouleau, T.; Whitaker, P. The Offshore Wind Power Debate: Views from Cape Cod. Coast. Manag. 2005, 33, 119–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Graczyk, A. Społeczne problemy rozwoju energetyki odnawialnej na obszarach wiejskich. In Zrównoważony Rozwój Obszarów Wiejskich. Wybrane Aspekty Społeczne, Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Katedra Polityki Społeczno-Gospodarczej i Europejskich Studiów Regionalnych; Kryk, B., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Economicus: Szczecin, Poland, 2010; pp. 92–109. Available online: http://www.wneiz.pl/katedry/kpsg/publikacje/zrownowazony_rozwoj_obszarow_wiejskich_t3.pdf#page=92 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  49. Bednarek-Szczepańska, M. Energetyka wiatrowa jako przedmiot konfliktów lokalizacyjnych w Polsce. Polityka Energetyczna Energy Policy J. 2016, 19, 53–72. [Google Scholar]
  50. Marcinkiewicz, J.; Poskrobko, T. Wpływ elektrowni wiatrowych na percepcję krajobrazu w świetle badań empirycznych. Ekon. I Sr. 2015, 2, 53. [Google Scholar]
  51. Slobodzian-Ksenicz, O.; Jasiewicz, M.; Kolenda, P. Analiza przestrzeni ekologicznej i społecznej dla elektrowni wiatrowych na przykładzie powiatu gryfińskiego. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Zielonogórskiego. Inżynieria Sr. 2016, 41, 161. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bednarek-Szczepańska, M.; Dmochowska-Dudek, K. Przestrzenny wymiar syndromu NIMBY na wsi i w małych miastach w Polsce. Przegląd Geogr. 2015, 87, 683–703. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bednarek-Szczepańska, M.; Dmochowska-Dudek, K. NIMBY Syndrome in Rural Areas of Poland: Determinants and Specificity of Conflicts on the Location of Unwanted Investments; IGiPZ PAN: Warsaw, Poland, 2016; p. 255. Available online: https://books.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=oi48DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Bednarek-Szczepa%C5%84ska,+M.%3B+Dmochowska-Dudek,+K.++Syndrom+NIMBY+na+Obszarach+Wiejskich+w+Polsce:+Uwarunkowania+i+Specyfika+Konflikt%C3%B3w+Wok%C3%B3%C5%82+Lokalizacji+Niechcianych+Inwestycji/++NIMBY+Syndrome+in+Rural+Areas+of+Poland:+Determinants+and+Specificity+of+Con&ots=WTvJIv5I7G&sig=J2AAGPwgi8LdzUcKXNVUzRJpYos&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  54. Bożętka, B. Pozyskiwanie energii wietrznej a zmiany krajobrazu. Konsekwencje dla funkcji rekreacyjnej. Probl. Ekol. Kraj. 2010, 27, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  55. Misiak, W.; Łucki, Z. Wpływ Energetyki Wiatrowej na Społeczności Lokalne; Raport Stowarzyszenia: Warszawa, Poland, 2012; pp. 155–158. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hektus, P. Czynniki lokalizacji elektrowni wiatrowych w Polsce. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Spatial Econometrics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  57. Siemiński, W.; Bida-Wawryniuk, Z.; Sudra, P. Elektrownie wiatrowe w opiniach mieszkańców wsi leżących w ich sąsiedztwie. Człowiek I Sr. 2018, 41, 89–115. [Google Scholar]
  58. PTS (Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne). Raport Końcowy: Ewaluacja Konsultacji Realizowanych Przy Budowie Elektrowni Wiatrowych w Polsce; PTS: Warsaw, Poland, 2011; pp. 9–67. [Google Scholar]
  59. Exclusion Zones around Wind Turbines. Available online: https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/imap/Imgp_2.html?gpmap=gp0 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  60. List of Cities in Poland (List of Cities, Map of Cities, Population, Area). Available online: https://www.polskawliczbach.pl/Miasta (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  61. Dziennik Bałtycki. Available online: https://dziennikbaltycki.pl/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  62. Echo Darłowa. Available online: http://www.infodarlowo.pl/ (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  63. McKenna, R.; Leye, P.O.V.; Fichtner, W. Key challenges and prospects for large wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1212–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Law on Wind Farm Act of 20 May 2016, Dz. U. 2016, item 961, elaborated on the basis of: Consolidated text of Dz. U. of 2021, item 724. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20160000961/U/D20160961Lj.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2022).
  65. Fodrowska, K. Elektrownie wiatrowe w Polsce. 3 March 2021. Available online: https://enerad.pl/aktualnosci/elektrownie-wiatrowe-w-polsce/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  66. Raport KSE 2021. Available online: https://www.pse.pl/dane-systemowe/funkcjonowanie-kse/raporty-roczne-z-funkcjonowania-kse-za-rok/raporty-za-rok-2021 (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  67. Rynek Elektryczny (RE). Moc Zainstalowana Farm Wiatrowych. Aktualizacja. 13 October 2022. Available online: https://www.rynekelektryczny.pl/najwieksze-farmy-wiatrowe-w-polsce/ (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  68. Rynek Elektryczny (RE). Największe Farmy Wiatrowe w Polsce. 23 April 2021. Available online: https://www.rynekelektryczny.pl/najwieksze-farmy-wiatrowe-w-polsce/ (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  69. Wytwarzanie Energii Elektrycznej w Polsce w Małych Instalacjach OZE. Raport Prezesa URE za 2021 rok; Urząd Regulacji Energetyki (URE): Warsaw, Poland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  70. Act on Spatial Planning and Development. 27 March 2003, Dz.U. 2003, No. 80, item 717, Consolidated Text. Based on: i.e., Journal Laws of 2022, item 503, 1846, 2185, 2747. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20030800717/U/D20030717Lj.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2022).
  71. Law on Nature Protection. 16 April 2004, Dz.U. 2004, No. 92, Item 880, Consolidated Text.Based on: i.e., Journal Laws of 2022, item 916, 1726, 2185, 2375. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20040920880/U/D20040880Lj.pdf (accessed on 24 December 2022).
  72. Forest Act. 28 September 1991, Dz.U. 1991, No. 101, Item 444, Consolidated Text. Based on: i.e., Journal Laws of 2022, Item 672, 1726, 2311. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19911010444/U/D19910444Lj.pdf (accessed on 24 December 2022).
  73. Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 10 September 2019 on Projects Likely to Have a Significant Impact on the Environment, Dz.U. 2019; Item 1839. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20190001839/O/D20191839.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2022).
  74. Lipiński, A.; Śląski, U. Miejscowy plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego jako instrument ochrony środowiska. Stud. Iurid. Agrar. 2016, 14, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. WysokieNapiecie.pl, a Portal about Energy in Polan. Available online: https://wysokienapiecie.pl/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  76. Kojzar, K. 2 proc. Powierzchni Polski Wyłączone Spod Zabudowy. Nowela Ustawy “Antywiatrakowej” ma to Zmienić. 2021. Available online: https://oko.press/2-proc-powierzchni-polski-wylaczone-spod-zabudowy (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  77. Walkiewicz, L. Kraina wiatraków. Echo Darłowa. 2002, p. 5. Available online: https://www.infodarlowo.pl/ (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  78. Wind Parks. Available online: https://windservice.eu/parki-wiatrowe/ (accessed on 16 October 2022).
  79. Napierała, M. “Fawele” w Darłowie. Plaga Nielegalnej Zabudowy Przy Wiatrakach. Urzędy Spierają się, Architektoniczny Bałagan Puchnie. 8 November 2022. Available online: https://koszalin.wyborcza.pl/ (accessed on 16 October 2022).
  80. Studium Gminy Darłowo Uchwalone. 2022. Available online: https://urbanconsulting.pl/studium-gminy-darlowo-uchwalone/ (accessed on 16 October 2022).
  81. Create Acceptance—Deliverable 3.1, 3.2 and 4, Factors Influencing the Societal Acceptance of New Energy Technologies: Meta-Analysis of Recent European Projects. 2008. Available online: https://www.esteem-tool.eu/fileadmin/esteem-tool/docs/Resourcesreport.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  82. Biniek, P. Rozwój morskiej energetyki wiatrowej w Polsce–analiza potencjalnych konfliktów społecznych. Stud. Ind. Geogr. Comm. Pol. Geogr. Soc. 2017, 31, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Johansson, M.; Laike, T. Intention to respond to local wind turbines: The role of attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy: Int. J. Prog. Appl. Wind Power Convers. Technol. 2007, 10, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wolsink, M. Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 1188–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Frantál, B.; Kunc, J. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes: Czech experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 499–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Araujo, M.S.M.; de Freitas, M.A.V. Acceptance of renewable energy innovation in Brazil—Case study of wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sæþórsdóttir, A.; Wendt, M.; Tverijonaite, E. Wealth of Wind and Visitors: Tourist Industry Attitudes towards Wind Energy Development in Iceland. Land 2021, 10, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mroczek, B. Akceptacja Dorosłych Polaków dla Energetyki Wiatrowej i Innych Odnawialnych Źródeł Energii; Polskie Stowarzyszenie Energetyki Wiatrowej: Szczecin, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  89. Marczak, P. Energetyka Wiatrowa a Społeczności Lokalne; Kancelaria Senatu RP: Warsaw, Poland, 2011; Available online: http://stopwiatrakom.eu/pliki/ot-600.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  90. Wiśniewski, G.; Michałowska-Knap, K.; Koć, S. Energetyka Wiatrowa–Stan Aktualny i Perspektywy Rozwoju w Polsce; Instytut Energetyki Odnawialnej (EC BREC IEO): Warszawa, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  91. Kaczerowski, M. Raport: Konflikty Społeczne w Energetyce Wiatrowej; Ambiens: Warsaw, Poland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  92. Hartley, N.; Wood, C. Public participation in environmental impact assessment—Implementing the Aarhus Convention. Energy Policy 2005, 25, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Niewiadomski, A. Lokalizowanie odnawialnych źródeł energii na obszarach wiejskich w świetle zasad planowania przestrzennego. Stud. Iurid. 2022, 91, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Czyżak, P.; Sikorski, M.; Wrona, A. Wiatr w żagle. Zasada 10H a potencjał lądowej energetyki wiatrowej w Polsce; Instrat Policy Note 01/2021; Instrat: Warsaw, Poland, 2021; Available online: https://instrat.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Instrat-Wiatr-w-z%CC%87agle.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  95. Hajto, M.; Cichocki, Z.; Bidłasik, M.; Borzyszkowski, J.; Kusmierz, A. Constraints on Development of Wind Energy in Poland due to Environmental Objectives. Is There Space in Poland for Wind Farm Siting? Environ. Manag. 2017, 59, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 16 01032 g001 550
Figure 1. Towns and cities covered by ‘exclusion zones’ around wind turbines in Poland in 2022. (at least 25% of the area covered) [59]. Circles: black—75–100% of the area; violet 50–74%; blue 25–49%.
Figure 1. Towns and cities covered by ‘exclusion zones’ around wind turbines in Poland in 2022. (at least 25% of the area covered) [59]. Circles: black—75–100% of the area; violet 50–74%; blue 25–49%.
Energies 16 01032 g001
Energies 16 01032 g002 550
Figure 2. ‘Exclusion zones’ around wind turbines in the town and municipality of Darłowo in 2022 [59].
Figure 2. ‘Exclusion zones’ around wind turbines in the town and municipality of Darłowo in 2022 [59].
Energies 16 01032 g002
Table
Table 1. The largest wind farms in Poland in 2022 [67,68].
Table 1. The largest wind farms in Poland in 2022 [67,68].
Wind FarmProvinceInstalled Capacity
[MW]		Number of TurbinesYear of CommissioningOwner
PotęgowoPomorskie, Zachodniopomorskie219812020Mashav Energia
MargoninWielkopolskie120602009EDP Renewables Polska
BanieZachodniopomorskie106532016Wiatromill
MarszewoZachodniopomorskie100502013Tauron Ekoenergia
LotniskoPomorskie94.5302015PGE Energia Odnawialna
KarścinoZachodniopomorskie90602009Energa OZE
Table
Table 2. Wind Parks in the Municipality of Darłowo managed by the Wind Service Company [78].
Table 2. Wind Parks in the Municipality of Darłowo managed by the Wind Service Company [78].
ItemWind ParkYear of CommissioningNumber of TurbinesCapacity
[MW]
1.Cisowo20011020
2.Wiekowice20121025
3.Jeżyce20121127.5.
4.Dobiesław20121127.5.
5.Boryszewo20121332.5.
6.Krupy2012717.5
7.Nowy Jarosław20121025
8.Stary Jarosław2012922.5.
9.Porzecze20141624
10.Gorzyca (Municipality of Darłowo, Malechowo)20151537.5.
Total 112259
Table
Table 3. Wind turbines with ‘exclusion zones’ defined around them in the Municipality of Darłowo, 2022 [59].
Table 3. Wind turbines with ‘exclusion zones’ defined around them in the Municipality of Darłowo, 2022 [59].
ItemHeight [m]NumberShare [%]Location Town
1.5054.2Kopań-Cisowo (5)
2.10010.8Wiekowo-Wiekowice (1)
3.11910.8Barzowice (1)
4.120119.3Kopań-Cisowo (10), Stary Jarosław (1),
5.1221613.6Porzecze (11), Wiekowice-Dobiesław (4), Jeżyce (1),
6. 1351815.3Jeżyce (12), Porzecze (6)
7.14597.7Dzierżęcin (7), Barzowice (2)
8.1505244.1Wiekowice-Dobiesław (16), Sińczyca-Krupy (9), Wiekowo-Dobiesław (8), Stary Jarosław (7), Nowy Jarosław (6), Kowalewice (3), Wiekowo-Wiekowice (3)
9.1958/954.2Wiekowo-Dobiesław (2 × 158), Boryszewo (2 × 159), Jeżyce (1 × 159)
118100
Table
Table 4. Main arguments “for” and “against” the construction and operation of wind turbines in the municipality of Darłowo (own elaboration).
Table 4. Main arguments “for” and “against” the construction and operation of wind turbines in the municipality of Darłowo (own elaboration).
Arguments “for” (Local Government)Arguments “against” (Inhabitants)
–
increased revenue from property taxes (more revenue for the municipality);
–
more infrastructure investments in the municipality;
–
negative impact on the development of agritourism;
–
difficulties in obtaining or blocking of building permits for houses;
–
noise (humming);
–
decrease in plot prices;
–
errors in planning documents.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rochmińska, A. Wind Energy Infrastructure and Socio-Spatial Conflicts. Energies 2023, 16, 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031032

AMA Style

Rochmińska A. Wind Energy Infrastructure and Socio-Spatial Conflicts. Energies. 2023; 16(3):1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rochmińska, Agnieszka. 2023. "Wind Energy Infrastructure and Socio-Spatial Conflicts" Energies 16, no. 3: 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031032

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop