Landscape Visual Impact Evaluation for Onshore Wind Farm: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Author:
The manuscript is well written and organized, the use of the English language is excellent, and the sections follow clearly. Here are some comments and minor modifications:
L37 - Please correct the word “Spanish” to Spain if referring to the county.
L202- Font of the section title, should be modified
L330-331 – Kindly describe figures 4-a to 4-c and the important features/indicators for the readers.
L336-338 – add a citation to these lines to support the author's claim.
L425 – please correct the (Fig 43), did you mean Figure 7?
L428 – please check the punctuation mark and water(0) is excluded from the table.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1:
Thank you for your comments on the perspective of structure organization, language, and explicit content. Your comments give me a clear clue to improve this manuscript and complete missing information.
Comment 1:
L37 - Please correct the word “Spanish” to Spain if referring to the county.
Response 1:
Yes, this is my mistake in the English expression. The content has been revised:” Following the rapid expansion of wind energy at the beginning of the 21st century, Germany, Denmark, Spain, and other developed countries in renewable energy have developed various approaches to landscape visual impact evaluation in wind farm planning.”
Comment 2:
L202- Font of the section title, should be modified.
Response 2:
The font of section titles has been checked and modified in the required formality.
Comment 3:
L330-331 – Kindly describe figures 4-a to 4-c and the important features/indicators for the readers.
Response 3:
Thank you for you suggestion. The descriptions for figures 4-a, 4-b and 4-c are indeed inadequate. The following contents are newly added to the manuscript.
Landscape element refers to the land use that makes up the landscape. In Fig. 4-a, the WTs are surrounded by farmland, with villages along the rivers and forests on the periphery. The landscape structure is related to the form of spatial combination, the relationship among elements, and the scale of elements that make up the landscape. Fig. 4-b combines the variables of visibility, Visual threshold, patch density, and diversity, showing a discrete distribution pattern of high sensitivity in the central region. Fig. 4-c illustrates the distribution of areas with high ecological, cultural, and recreational values, which concentrate on the west side of the Streu river, and along the banks of the Bahra and Fränkische Saale rivers.
Comment 4:
L336-338 – add a citation to these lines to support the author's claim.
Response 4:
A representative paper on landscape and nature has been cited to support the argument.
The sensitivity degree is closely connected to the naturalness of the landscape [47].
- Antrop, Why landscapes of the past are important for the future, Landsc. Urban Plan. 70 (2005) 21–34. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002.
Comment 5:
L425 – please correct the (Fig 43), did you mean Figure 7?
Response 5:
The error in figure numbering has been corrected to Figure 7.
Comment 6:
L428 – please check the punctuation mark and water(0) is excluded from the table.
|
Land use |
Area (ha) |
Area proportion |
Mean score (0-5) |
Medium visual impact (Score ≥ 3) |
Heavy visual impact (Score ≥ 5) |
|
Village |
894.76 |
4.82 % |
2.78 |
55.46 % |
44.70 % |
|
Town |
828.64 |
4.47 % |
3.46 |
70.04 % |
54.72 % |
|
Forest |
4406.68 |
23.76 % |
2.94 |
58.79 % |
52.59 % |
|
Water |
0 |
0.00% |
0 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
Industrial & infrastructure facilities |
93.12 |
0.50 % |
3.37 |
65.16 % |
61.43 % |
|
Farmland |
12325.32 |
66.44 % |
2.86 |
57.13 % |
48.26 % |
|
Cultural heritage |
0.20 |
0.001 % |
1.40 |
20.00 % |
20.00 % |
|
Recreational facilities |
1.72 |
0.01 % |
0.77 |
16.28 % |
13.95 % |
|
Total |
18550.44 |
100.00 % |
2.88 |
57.63 % |
49.03 % |
Response 6:
The punctuation marks have been checked and modified. The row of water (although area is 0) has been added to Table 3.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Onshore wind farm planning optimization is one of the research hotspots currently. While landscape visual impact is not the most significant factors to be considered in onshore wind farm planning. Actually the wind energy is most important. Some comments are below,
1), the title is suggested changed into "Landscape visual impact evaluation for onshore wind farm: a case study"
2)The wind farm planning optimization can not be found directly because that the only some recommendations for wind farm planning procedures are not sufficient.
3)In lines 488-489,"The LVIE model can be used to calculate how much dis- 488
tance should be assigned as a buffer under different scenarios. " A specific case study or example with simulation should explain how to use the LVIE model, not only a story description in lines 494-507.
4) In lines 362-368, how to determine the percents and scores as "a). According to the spatial analysis in GIS, 33.57 % of areas have a score of 0 (i.e., invisible), while the areas suffer from the highest level of visual impact with a score of 5 (i.e., ＞ 80 % are visible) accounts 49.03 %. Other visible proportions account for 4.23 % (score1), 4.58 % (score 2), 4.59 % (score 3), and 4.01 % (score 4) respectively "?
5) In line 575-576, "It should be noted that there may be other effective variables that have not been in cluded in the LVIE model." other variables should be stated at least one example. as "e.g.";
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has addressed all my remarks
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and support of my research.
Best regards,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Most of my suggestions are adopted by the author, and my questions are answered in a proper way. New minor changes should be made or corrected in the section of References, e.g.
"[7] W. Nohl, Ist das Landschaftsbild messbar und bewertbar? – Bestandsaufnahme und Ausblick, 收入: Presentation at the 693 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Wien, 2010: 页 1–18."
"[13] The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment of UK, Guidelines for Landscape 708 and Visual Impact Assessment, 2 本, Spon Press, London & New York, 2005."
"[18] LANUV (Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen), Verfahren zur 719 Landschaftsbildbewertung im Zuge der Ersatzgeld-Ermittlung für Eingriffe in das Landschaftsbild durch den Bau von 720 Windenergieanlagen, (2016). Verfahren zur Landschaftsbildbewertung im Zuge der Ersatzgeld-Ermittlung für Eingriffe in 721 das Landschaftsbild durch den Bau von Windenergieanlagen (见於 2020年4月5日)."
"[25] S. Linke, Ästhetik, Werte und Landschaft, 收入: O. Kühne, H. Megerle, F. Weber (编), Landschaftsästhetik und 738 Landschaftswandel, Springer VS., Wiesbaden, 2017: 页 23–40. "
"[36] S. Bell, Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process, 2 本, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, USA and Canada, 2012. 760 http://weekly.cnbnews.com/news/article.html?no=124000."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
