Wind farms planning: a participatory approach

Ana Simão

Under supervision of:

Paul Densham Muki Haklay

Outline

• Setting the context or my work

• Wind energy around the world

• Technology, economy and environment

• The problem

• Criticisms to current practice

• Proposed approach

• Expected outcomes

• Final conclusions

Setting the context

Evidence of climatechange

Growing energy shortage

Renewable EnergyProduction

windwaste solarwave tidal biomass

Status of wind energy: world

• Countries ranking end of:– Germany ~ 14,600 MW 2003– Spain ~ 6,200 MW 2003– The USA ~ 4,700 MW 2002– Denmark ~ 3,100 MW 2003– India ~ 1,7000 MW 2002

• World’s fastest-growing energy source

– 1997: 7,600 MW– 2001: 24,200 MW – 2002: 31,127 MW (28%)

Status of wind energy: Europe

• Total capacity (end of 2003):– EU ~ 28,706 MW– Rest Europe ~ 268

MW

• Growth rate:– EU (01/02): 33,4%– EU (02/03): 23,1%– Rest Europe ~ rates

(EWEA, 2004)

Technology: wind turbines

• Wind turbines – 1.5 MW >> 60m hub + 63m

rotor diam. ~ 100m– Denmark world leaders

• Offshore – larger machines

(foundations & maintenance costs)

– up to 3 MW

• Costs are dropping

Danish old turbine

1.5 MW, Nordtank, Denmark (Oct. 1995)

Wind energy: benefits• Economy

– economically viable – cheaper than coal & nuclear and competitive to

gas, if externalities are accounted

• Environment– abundant and non-exhausted – widely available– domestic: eliminates monopoly control over

power sales– produce pollution-free energy– less hazardous energy schemes

Wind energy: impacts

• Impacts– land requirement: just 1% and nonexclusive!– visual impact … but personal taste!– noise … not a real problem nowadays – bird disturbance (raptors & migratory)

• … no more than transmission Lines • no endanger species

– electromagnetic interferences …careful siting

• Public acceptance of wind energy in general is high (80% support in UK)

What’s the problem?

renewable energy cannot solve our energy problems

wind turbines spoil the scenery

turning wind turbines are noisy, similar to

helicopters taking off.

wind farms blow house value away

acceptable birds mortality level is ZERO!

DECISIONAL LOCATION is highly contentious !!!

Who are the interested parties?

Planning

Authority

Locals

Natureconservation

bodies

AviationAuthorities

Energy

authority

Landscapebodies

Bird

conservationists

Land owners

Wind Industry

Government

Nat. defenceauthority

I oppose building wind farms within

74 km of air defence radars

UK planning procedureSite selection &

Project feasibility studies

Project development

EIA preparation

Application stage

Inform Licensing Authority

Consultation Stage

Determination Stage

Developer

Developer, Planning Authority (LA or DTI)

Developer

Developer (optional scoping exercise)

Developer

Public (inc. interest-groups) Adm. consultants

Planning Authority

Criticisms

Lack of communication between developers and the public

Case-based decision: plans make no provision for RE developments

Public (locals & interest-group) involved too late in the planning procedure

Preeminent role of developers in the planning procedure

What’s the solution?

Inform the public and dispel myths

Adopt continuous, transparent planning: outcomes of early consultations integrated in subsequent proposals

Promote Participatory planning since early phases of planning procedure

Favour Collaborative planning

Foster a more positive, plan-led system

How to implement it?

• Use of Internet

AIM OF RESEARCH:

• designing, developing and testing a web-based system for democratic participation, which will enable the public – to express their opinion– and collaborate

in the process of determining the most appropriate places for siting wind farms

The web page system: structure

2nd tier

3rd tier

4th tier

1st tier

Receive user feedback and give thanks for their participation

Inform the public and demystify erroneous or biased assumptions

Encourage individual learning and creation of personal constructs

Promote collaborative work: brainstorming, discussion and share of ideas

Web-based system: 1st tier

Welcome and introduction to the web site

Framing of wind energy context, benefits and costs of wind farms and the siting problem

User identification

1st tier Inform the public and demystify erroneous/biased assumptions

Presentation of feasible sites for WE development

Users asked to sort feasible sites by choosing site constraints and weighting a pre-defined set of criteria

Web-based system: 2nd tier

2nd tier Encourage individual learning and creation of personal constructions

• Easy to use and understand;

• User preferences materialized via maps;

• “Real-time” map updating;

• Control buttons and map integrated.

Yorkshire Dales National Park - Regional woodland planting (www.ccg.leeds.ac.uk/dales/)

• Inspired in CCG’s work (Univ. Leeds)

2nd tier: breakdown

Feasib

le sit

es fo

r

wind fa

rms

Criteria

for w

ind

farms l

ocatio

n

Feedback to users by means of a “composite map” and a “controversy map”

Users given the opportunity to argue in favour of their learnt positions and explore arguments supporting distinct positions

Web-based system: 3rd tier

3rd tier Promote collaborative work: brainstorming, discussion and share of ideas

3rd tier: breakdown • Concept of argumentative framework

– enables to capture, structure and present argumentation from interaction between collaborative individuals

• Linked to geographical features

Reason!Able, van Gelder (2001), U Melbourne

CrossDoc, C. Tweed (1997), U. Belfast

4th tier

Comments on the system and system usability.

Thanks and goodbye.

Web-based system: 4th tier

Receive user feedback and give thanks for their participation

Case study

• UK (eventually in Portugal too)

• Scale of approach: … not sure!

– Regional (South West & North West)– County level (Cornwall & Devon)

Expected outcomes

• Identify the public’s preferences in terms of wind farms location

• Infer the characteristics of the sites considered as “less adequate” for wind farms development

• Acknowledge major concerns associated to wind energy development

• Inventory all interest groups (stakeholders) and their motivations

Conclusions & Next steps

Publicparticipation

Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Argumentative framework

Thank You !

Ana Simãoa.simao@geog.ucl.ac.uk

Current work

• Why that? Impacts of wind farms– Visual impact– Ecologic systems impact (erecting a WT implies

opening a whole 2x2m2) some systems might have difficulties to recuperate

– Noise impacts – show the relative importance– Birds impacts – Area consumption– Impacts on fishes in offshore

Summarizing the problemsInaccurate and misleading 'facts‘

delivered by (local) media

Lack of communication between developers and the public

Public (locals & interest-group) involved too late in the planning

procedure

Convert local scepticism into actions against

projects

Preeminent role of developers in the planning procedure

Case-based decision: plans do not make provision for RE

developments

Consequences

Lengthy and uncertain application decision

Inexistence of integrated planning and global

perspective

1st tier: breakdown

• Basic HTML web pages– succession of Informative & Explicative HTML

pages– basic forms to fill in (user identification & basic

questions about perception of WF (????))

• Eventually multimedia association– sound of spinning wind turbine– images of distinct wind farms layouts, …)

2nd tier: breakdown (2)

• Some aspects can be refined:1. User input interface

• slider bars rolling freely do not warnusers about trade-offs being made

»» QUESTION:

How to validate users input in a simple, Internet-compatible environment?

• Facilitates user perceptions of their resulting output

• Enable better control over the outcome• Implicitly discloses the thresholds

between classes»» QUESTION:

Which? Understandability versus theoretical consideration

2nd tier: breakdown (3)

• Some aspects can be refined:2. Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) method

• sorting algorithm: 3 classes

• Some aspects can be refined:3. Uncertainty (confidence) & fuzziness

• Uncertainty (confidence) associated to individual preferences?

• Fuzziness of data and parameters?

»» QUESTION

Worth to consider?

2nd tier: breakdown (4)

2nd tier: breakdown (5)

• Technology– ArcGIS for spatial analysis– Internet – GIS (Ionics ‘s or ESRI’ web server)– JAVA – Re-use available code

• Explore multimedia technologies– create a more engaging participatory

environment – provide non-local users with a picture of the

area in appraisal– Shiffer (1995), Al-Kodmany (1999), Hudson-

Smith (2002)

3rd tier: breakdown (3)

• Technology– JAVA– Re-use available code– Explore multimedia technology

3rd tier: breakdown (4)

4th tier: breakdown

• Technology: – Basic HTML web pages– Basic forms to fill in

• users comments

Case study

• UK (eventually in Portugal too)– International & National commitment to 2010,

already extended to 2020 (UK, national)

• Agenda 21 (public participation)• Regional approach to RE (in UK)• Regional planning cascade down into

county planning: example of South England

• Release the system at county (regional) level