Enabling Renewable Energy While Protecting Wildlife: An Ecological Risk-Based Approach to Wind Energy Development Using Ecosystem-Based Management Values
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Ecological Risks Posed by Wind Energy Development
1.2. Challenges of Wind-Wildlife Management
1.3. Risk and Risk-Based Management
1.4. Challenges of Consenting/Permitting Wind Energy Projects
1.5. Environmental Risk-Based Systems for Wind Energy
- Marine Scotland, the regulator for offshore energy development in Scotland, employs the Survey-Deploy-Monitor approach to allow accelerated permitting and licensing for low-risk areas. This risk-based approach is used when potential effects are poorly understood to enable wind turbine deployment in a manner that will reduce scientific uncertainty over time, while enabling a level of development that is proportionate to the risks [42].
- A risk-ranking system developed in the U.S. considers the biological imperatives for the potential effects of offshore wind development on marine animals, birds, and bats, and their associated habitats; the system also considers the protected or management status for each set of organisms in the U.S. [43]. However, the system has not been implemented for permitting/consenting wind farms in the U.S. or internationally.
- Adaptive management (AM)—a learning-based management approach used to reduce scientific uncertainty—has been identified as a tool for advancing the wind energy industry, but its practical application has been limited. AM has primarily been actively implemented in the U.S., while other nations have applied some AM principles. AM allows wind energy projects to adapt monitoring and mitigation over time, leading to improved decision-making [34,44].
1.6. Ecosystem-Based Management
1.7. Effective Application of Ecosystem-Based Management
2. Materials and Methods
- Spatial scales: Where does the risk occur and at what scale? For example, seasonal or diurnal migratory linkages to wind farm development at one location may have an impact farther afield.
- Temporal scales: When does the impact occur? For example, even though the severity of an impact may appear to be limited now, it may trigger an ecological tipping point for future generations.
- Theoretical assessments: Which available models can appropriately assess risk across space and time? For example, economic cost-benefit models tend to poorly predict effects in the long term.
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Recommendations for Environmental RBM for Wind Energy Development
4.2. Addressing Complexity of Ecological Interactions
4.3. Using the Mitigation Hierarchy and Adaptive Management to Manage Wind Farms
4.4. Inclusion of Stakeholders
4.5. Social and Economic Outcomes
4.6. Best Management Practices for the Application of Risk-Based Management to Wind Energy Development
- Examining criteria that support ecological integrity and manage risk to the environment, working with the stakeholders.
- Measuring the criteria against proposed actions.
- Determining whether the proposed wind development actions are unlikely to meet the needs of a healthy environment.
- Empowering the wind farm proponent, regulators, and stakeholders to collectively determine the definition of environmental health in the presence of wind farms.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Edenhofer, O.R.; Pichs-Madruga, Y.; Sokona, K.; Seyboth, P.; Matschoss, S.; Kadner, T.; Zwickel, P.; Eickemeier, G.; Hansen, S.; Schloemer, C.; et al. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): New York, NY, USA, 2011; p. 1075. [Google Scholar]
- Gee, K.; Kannen, A.; Adlam, R.; Brooks, C.; Chapman, M.; Cormier, R.; Fischer, C.; Fletcher, S.; Gubbins, M.; Shucksmith, R.; et al. Identifying culturally significant areas for marine spatial planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 136, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gerkensmeier, B.; Ratter, B.M.W. Multi-risk, multi-scale and multi-stakeholder—The contribution of a bow-tie analysis for risk management in the trilateral Wadden Sea Region. J. Coast. Conserv. 2018, 22, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gill, A.B.; Wilhelmsson, D. Fish. In Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 3 Offshore: Potential Effects; Perrow, M., Ed.; Pelagic Publishing: Exeter, UK, 2019; 250p. [Google Scholar]
- Nehls, G.; Harwood, A.J.P.; Perrow, M. Marine Mammals. In Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 3 Offshore: Potential Effects; Perrow, M., Ed.; Pelagic Publishing: Exeter, UK, 2019; 250p. [Google Scholar]
- Hüppop, O.B.; Michalik, L.; Bach, R.; Hill, S.K. Migratory Birds and Bats. In Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 3 Offshore: Potential Effects; Perrow, M., Ed.; Pelagic Publishing: Exeter, UK, 2019; 250p. [Google Scholar]
- Vanermen, N.; Stienen, E.W.M. Seabirds: Displacement. In Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 3 Offshore: Potential Effects; Perrow, M., Ed.; Pelagic Publishing: Exeter, UK, 2019; 250p. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, R.M.; Baerwald, E.; Gruver, J. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: Assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Can. J. Zool. 2007, 85, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, A.T.; Batalha, H.; Rodrigues, S.M.M.; Costa, H.; Pereira, M.J.R.; Fonseca, C.; Mascarenhas, M.; Bernardino, J. Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 179, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaxter, C.B.; Buchanan, G.; Carr, J.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Newbold, T.; Green, R.E.; Tobias, J.A.; Foden, W.; O’Brien, S.; Pearce-Higgins, J.W. Bird and bat species’ global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2017, 284, 20170829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuvlesky, W.P.; Brennan, L.A.; Morrison, M.L.; Boydston, K.K.; Ballard, B.M.; Bryant, F.C. Wind Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71, 2487–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- May, R.F. A unifying framework for the underlying mechanisms of avian avoidance of wind turbines. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 190, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunz, T.H.; Arnett, E.B.; Erickson, W.P.; Hoar, A.R.; Johnson, G.D.; Larkin, R.P.; Strickland, M.D.; Thresher, R.W.; Tuttle, M.D. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: Questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pelc, R.; Fujita, R.M. Renewable energy from the ocean. Mar. Policy 2002, 26, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovich, J.E.; Ennen, J.R. Assessing the state of knowledge of utility-scale wind energy development and operation on non-volant terrestrial and marine wildlife. Appl. Energy 2013, 103, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hüppop, O.; Dierschke, J.; Exo, K.-M.; Fredrich, E.; Hill, R. Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Ibis 2006, 148, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brabant, R.; Vanermen, N.; Stienen, E.W.M.; Degraer, S. Towards a cumulative collision risk assessment of local and migrating birds in North Sea offshore wind farms. Hydrobiol. 2015, 756, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomsen, F.; Lüdemann, K.; Kafemann, R.; Piper, W. Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Noise on Marine Mammals and Fish; Report by Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE); COWRIE (Cooperative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment): Hamburg, Germany, 2006; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
- Baeye, M.; Fettweis, M. In situ observations of suspended particulate matter plumes at an offshore wind farm, southern North Sea. Geo-Marine Lett. 2015, 35, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallejo, G.C.; Grellier, K.; Nelson, E.J.; McGregor, R.M.; Canning, S.J.; Caryl, F.M.; McLean, N. Responses of two marine top predators to an offshore wind farm. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 8698–8708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vanermen, N.; Onkelinx, T.; Courtens, W.; Van De Walle, M.; Verstraete, H.; Stienen, E.W.M. Seabird avoidance and attraction at an offshore wind farm in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Hydrobiol. 2014, 756, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dierschke, V.; Furness, R.W.; Garthe, S. Seabirds and offshore wind farms in European waters: Avoidance and attraction. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 202, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilding, T.A.; Gill, A.B.; Boon, A.; Sheehan, E.; Dauvin, J.; Pezy, J.-P.; O’Beirn, F.; Janas, U.; Rostin, L.; De Mesel, I. Turning off the DRIP (‘Data-rich, information-poor’)—Rationalising monitoring with a focus on marine renewable energy developments and the benthos. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 848–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardona, O.-D.; Van Aalst, M.K.; Birkmann, J.; Fordham, M.; McGregor, G.; Perez, R.; Pulwarty, R.S.; Schipper, E.L.F.; Sinh, B.T.; Décamps, H.; et al. Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerability. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation; A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Field, C.B., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 65–108. [Google Scholar]
- ISO (International Standards Organisation). Risk Management—Guidelines; ISO 31000:2018-02(E); ISO (International Standards Organisation): Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- IFC (International Finance Corporation). Good Practice Handbook Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets; International Finance Corporation: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; 102p. [Google Scholar]
- Cormier, R.; Londsdale, J. Risk assessment for deep sea mining: An overview of risk. Mar. Policy 2020, 114, 103485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stelzenmüller, V.; Coll, M.; Mazaris, A.D.; Giakoumi, S.; Katsanevakis, S.; Portman, M.E.; Degen, R.; Mackelworth, P.; Gimpel, A.; Albano, P.G.; et al. A risk-based approach to cumulative effect assessments for marine management. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 612, 1132–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormier, R.; Kannen, A.; Elliott, M.; Hall, P. Marine Spatial Planning Quality Management System. ICES Coop. Res. Rep. 2015, 327, 111. [Google Scholar]
- Gregory, R.; Failing, L.; Harstone, M.; Long, G.; McDaniels, T.; Ohlson, D. Structural Decision Making; A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices; Wiley: Blackwell West Sussex, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hanssen, F.; May, R.; Van Dijk, J.; Rød, J.K. Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2018, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copping, A.; Gorton, A.; May, R.; Bennet, F.; de George, E.; Repas Goncalves, M.; Rumes, B. IEA Wind White Paper on A Risk-Based Approach for Addressing Wind and Wildlife Interactions Using Ecosystem-Based Management Values. Prep. Int. Energy Agency Wind Implement. Agreem. Task 2020, 34, 67. [Google Scholar]
- Sinclair, K.; Copping, A.E.; May, R.; Bennet, F.; Warnas, M.; Perron, M.; Elmqvist, Å.; DeGeorge, E. Resolving environmental effects of wind energy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2018, 7, e291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copping, A.; Gartman, V.; May, R.; Bennet, F. The Role of Adaptive Management in the Wind Energy Industry. In Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Balancing Energy Sustainability with Wildlife Conservation; Bispo, R., Bernardino, J., Coelho, H., Costa, J.L., Eds.; Springer Nature Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- May, R. Mitigation options for birds. In Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 1. Onshore. Part 2: Solutions; Best Practice, Monitoring and Mitigation; Perrow, M., Ed.; Pelagic Publishers, Taylor and Francis: Exeter, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Köppel, J.; Dahmen, M.; Helfrich, J.; Schuster, E.; Bulling, L. Cautious but Committed: Moving Toward Adaptive Planning and Operation Strategies for Renewable Energy’s Wildlife Implications. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ricci, P.F.; Sheng, H. Benefits and Limitations of the Precautionary Principle. In Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashrafi, M.; Davoudpour, H.; Khodakarami, V. Risk assessment of wind turbines: Transition from pure mechanistic paradigm to modern complexity paradigm. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, J.J.; Sørensen, J.D. Methods for Risk-Based Planning of O&M of Wind Turbines. Energies 2014, 7, 6645–6664. [Google Scholar]
- Florian, M.; Sørensen, J.D. Risk-based planning of operation and maintenance for offshore wind farms. Energy Procedia 2017, 137, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staid, A.; Guikema, S.D. Risk Analysis for U.S. Offshore Wind Farms: The Need for an Integrated Approach. Risk Anal. 2015, 35, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scottish Government. Survey, Deploy and Monitor Licensing Policy Guidance. 2018. Available online: https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/Applications/SDM (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Copping, A.; Hanna, L.; Van Cleve, B.; Blake, K.; Anderson, R.M. Environmental Risk Evaluation System—An Approach to Ranking Risk of Ocean Energy Development on Coastal and Estuarine Environments. Chesap. Sci. 2014, 38, S287–S302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanna, L.; Copping, A.; Geerlofs, S.; Feinberg, L.; Brown-Saracino, J.; Gilman, P.; Bennet, F.; May, R.; Köppel], J.; Bulling, L.; et al. Assessing Environmental Effects (WREN): Adaptive Management White Paper; Report by Berlin Institute of Technology; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Marine Scotland Science, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
- Long, R.D.; Charles, A.; Stephenson, R.L. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 2015, 57, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piet, G.; Culhane, F.; Jongbloed, R.; Robinson, L.; Rumes, B.; Tamis, J. An integrated risk-based assessment of the North Sea to guide ecosystem-based management. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 654, 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christensen, N.; Bartuska, A.; Brown, H.; Carpenter, S.; D’Antonio, C.; Francis, R.; Franklin, J.; MacMahon, J.; Noss, R.; Parsons, D.; et al. The report of the Ecological Society of American Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 6, 665–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ruckelshaus, M.; Klinger, T.; Knowlton, N.; DeMaster, D.P. Marine Ecosystem-based Management in Practice: Scientific and Governance Challenges. Bioscience 2008, 58, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Barnes, C.; McFadden, K.W. Marine ecosystem approaches to management: Challenges and lessons in the United States. Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, P.S.; Fogarty, M.J.; Murawski, S.A.; Fluharty, D. Integrated Ecosystem Assessments: Developing the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Management of the Ocean. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e1000014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Samhouri, J.F.; Haupt, A.J.; Levin, P.S.; Link, J.S.; Shuford, R. Lessons learned from developing integrated ecosystem assessments to inform marine ecosystem-based management in the USA. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2013, 71, 1205–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahlborg, H.; Ruiz-Mercado, I.; Molander, S.; Masera, O. Bringing Technology into Social-Ecological Systems Research—Motivations for a Socio-Technical-Ecological Systems Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rouillard, J.; Lago, M.; Abhold, K.; Röschel, L.; Kafyeke, T.; Mattheiß, V.; Klimmek, H. Protecting aquatic biodiversity in Europe: How much do EU environmental policies support ecosystem-based management? Ambio 2018, 47, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Griffiths, J.C.; Dushenko, W.T. Effectiveness of GIS suitability mapping in predicting ecological impacts of proposed wind farm development on Aristazabal Island, BC. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2011, 13, 957–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrete, M.; Sánchez-Zapata, J.A.; Benítez, J.R.; Lobón, M.; Donázar, J.A. Large scale risk-assessment of wind-farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2954–2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Arkema, K.K.; Abramson, S.C.; Dewsbury, B.M. Marine ecosystem-based management: From characterization to implementation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 525–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardiner, S.M. A Perfect Moral Storm. The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- May, R.; Gill, A.B.; Köppel, J.; Langston, R.H.W.; Reichenbach, M.; Scheidat, M.; Smallwood, S.; Voigt, C.C.; Hüppop, O.; Portman, M. Future research directions to reconcile wind–wildlife interactions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin 2015, Berlin, Germany, 10–12 March 2015; Köppel, J., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 255–276. [Google Scholar]
- Burkhard, B.; Opitz, S.; Lenhart, H.; Ahrendt, K.; Garthe, S.; Mendel, B.; Windhorst, W. Ecosystem based modeling and indication of ecological integrity in the German North Sea—Case study offshore wind parks. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mavraki, N.; Degraer, S.; Moens, T.; Vanaverbeke, J. Functional differences in trophic structure of offshore wind farm communities: A stable isotope study. Mar. Environ. Res. 2020, 157, 104868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mavraki, N.; De Mesel, I.; Degraer, S.; Moens, T.; Vanaverbeke, J. Resource Niches of Co-occurring Invertebrate Species at an Offshore Wind Turbine Indicate a Substantial Degree of Trophic Plasticity. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stabell, E.D.; Steel, D. Precaution and Fairness: A Framework for Distributing Costs of Protection from Environmental Risks. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2018, 31, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- May, R. The Mitigation of Impact and the Impact of Mitigation: An Ethical Perspective. In Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Balancing Energy Sustainability with Wildlife Conservation; Bispo, R., Bernardino, J., Coelho, H., Costa, J.L., Eds.; Springer Nature Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 93–113. [Google Scholar]
- Joos, M.; Staffell, I. Short-term integration costs of variable renewable energy: Wind curtailment and balancing in Britain and Germany. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 86, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.R.; Eiser, J.R. Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3106–3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Category | Specific Criteria | Requirement for Specific Criteria |
---|---|---|
General criteria | Sustainability | Emphasizes maintenance of one or more aspects of the ecosystem |
Ecological health | Includes non-specific goals for ecosystem health or integrity | |
Inclusion of humans in ecosystem | Recognizes that humans are elements of an ecosystem and their education and well-being are important components of management decisions | |
Specific ecological criteria | Complexity | Acknowledges that linkages between ecosystem components, such as food web structure, predator-prey relationships, habitat associations, and other biotic and abiotic interactions, should be incorporated into management decisions |
Temporal | Incorporates the temporal scale and dynamic character of ecosystems | |
Spatial | Recognizes that ecosystem processes operate over a wide range of spatial scales | |
Specific human dimension criteria | Ecosystem goods and services | Recognizes that humans use and value natural resources, such as water quality, harvested products, tourism, and public recreation |
Economic | Integrates economic factors into the vision for the ecosystem | |
Stakeholder | Engages interested parties in the management planning processes to find common solutions | |
Specific management criteria | Science-based | Incorporates management decisions based on tested hypotheses |
Boundaries | Recognizes that management plans must be spatially defined | |
Technological | Uses scientific and industrial technology as tools needed to monitor the ecosystem and evaluate management actions | |
Adaptive | Continues to improve management actions through systematic evaluation | |
Co-management | Promotes shared responsibility for management between multiple levels of government and stakeholders | |
Precautionary approach | Manages conservatively when threats to the ecosystem are uncertain | |
Interdisciplinary | Bases management on scientific understanding from several disciplines (ecology, economics, sociology) | |
Monitoring | Tracks changes in biotic, abiotic, and human ecosystem components for management purposes |
Goal No. | Goal | Wind Farm Objectives Needed to Meet Risk-Based Management Goals |
---|---|---|
1 | Sustainability | Native animals, plants, and the habitats and migratory corridors that support them must persist and take into account population-level effects. |
2 | Ecological health | The health and resiliency of the overall ecosystem is maintained or enhanced through management actions. |
3 | Inclusion of humans in ecosystem | A range of ecosystem services are accommodated in the area of wind farm development. |
4 | Complexity | Management decisions acknowledge linkages between ecosystem components, including predator-prey relationships, critical habitat needs for vulnerable populations, linkages of migratory corridors and critical habitats, and food web linkages at sea. |
5 | Temporal | Post-installation monitoring data collection and mitigation actions are applied seasonally as needed for key populations. Consideration is given to long-term cumulative effects on populations and habitats. |
6 | Spatial | Baseline assessments and post-installation monitoring of key populations cover spatial scales appropriate to the life history and home ranges of those populations. Consideration is given to the effects of wind farms that may occur at greater distances. |
7 | Economics | Operational constraints to protect wildlife and habitat allow sufficient power generation for wind farms to be profitable. |
8 | Stakeholders | Interested parties are consulted at the start of the development process and at all key points in time to determine sustainable operation of the wind farm. |
9 | Science-based | Management criteria are science-based with hypothesis-based post-installation monitoring plans. |
10 | Technological | Appropriate technologies and scientifically validated methods are used to monitor the potential effects of wind farm operation, and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation actions. |
11 | Adaptive | Adaptive management principles and procedures are applied to allow changes in post-installation monitoring efforts and mitigation actions when monitoring data indicate the need. |
Case Number and Name | Country | Description of Development | Stage of Development | Management Actions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Crudine Ridge Wind Farm, New South Wales | Australia | 37 turbines, 135 MW capacity | Under construction | Ecological approach to management, including adaptive management:
|
2 | Norther Offshore Wind Farm | Belgium | 44 turbines, 370 MW capacity | Operational |
|
3 | Smøla Wind Farm | Norway | 68 wind turbines, 150 MW capacity | Operational, moving toward repowering |
|
4 | Candeeiros Wind Farm, Alcobaça/Rio Maior | Portugal | 42 turbines, 121 MW, estimated annual production of 345 GW | Operational, repowering |
|
5 | Swiss Jura mountains, 13 distinct projects | Switzerland | 145 wind turbines, spread over 2000 km2 | Studies under way to support consenting and development |
|
6 | Moray Firth Offshore Wind Projects, which entails 3 projects | United Kingdom |
|
|
|
7 | Sierra de los Caracoles Wind Farm | Uruguay | 5 turbines, 10 MW capacity, additional 5 turbines proposed, 10 MW capacity | Operational and planning |
|
8 | Block Island | United States | First offshore wind farm in North America. Five seabed-mounted turbines, each 6 MW. | Operational |
|
9 | Cape Wind Energy Project, Nantucket Sound | United States | 130 turbines, 468 MW capacity | Planning and consenting process. Cancelled. |
|
10 | Iowa Wind Energy Project Portfolio, Iowa | United States | 22 wind energy facilities with 2020 turbines, greater than 4040 MW capacity | Operational |
|
Case 1 Crudine Ridge | Case 2 Norther | Case 3 Smøla | Case 4 Candeeiros | Case 5 Jura Mountains | Case 6 Moray Firth | Case 7 Sierra de los Caracoles | Case 8 Block Island | Case 9 Cape Wind | Case 10 Iowa Wind Energy | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Development Phase | Under Construction | Siting and Permitting, Construction, Operational | Operational, Planning for Repowering | Operational | Studies to Support Consenting | Operational, Consented, Consenting Consultation | Operational and Planned | Siting and Permitting, Construction, Operational | Planning, Siting and Permitting (Cancelled) | Operational |
Sustainability | XX | X | XX | - | XX | XX | X | X | - | X |
Ecological health | XX | XX | - | - | - | - | XX | - | X | X |
Humans in ecosystem | X | X | X | X | XX | X | XX | X | X | - |
Complexity | - | X | - | - | - | X | X | - | - | - |
Temporal | X | XX | XX | XX | X | XX | X | X | XX | XX |
Spatial | XX | XX | XX | X | XX | XX | X | X | X | XX |
Economics | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | XX | - | XX |
Stakeholders | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Science-based | X | XX | XX | X | X | XX | XX | X | XX | X |
Techno-logical | - | XX | XX | - | - | - | X | X | XX | X |
Adaptive | XX | XX | X | XX | XX | X | XX | XX | X | XX |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Copping, A.E.; Gorton, A.M.; May, R.; Bennet, F.; DeGeorge, E.; Repas Goncalves, M.; Rumes, B. Enabling Renewable Energy While Protecting Wildlife: An Ecological Risk-Based Approach to Wind Energy Development Using Ecosystem-Based Management Values. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229352
Copping AE, Gorton AM, May R, Bennet F, DeGeorge E, Repas Goncalves M, Rumes B. Enabling Renewable Energy While Protecting Wildlife: An Ecological Risk-Based Approach to Wind Energy Development Using Ecosystem-Based Management Values. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229352
Chicago/Turabian StyleCopping, Andrea E., Alicia M. Gorton, Roel May, Finlay Bennet, Elise DeGeorge, Miguel Repas Goncalves, and Bob Rumes. 2020. "Enabling Renewable Energy While Protecting Wildlife: An Ecological Risk-Based Approach to Wind Energy Development Using Ecosystem-Based Management Values" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229352