|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences eTheses|
|Title:||Wildlife impacts of and public attitudes towards small wind turbines|
|Publisher:||University of Stirling|
|Abstract:||Global wind power generation has grown rapidly in response to targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of efforts to mitigate climate change, and to increase energy security. While much of the focus in wind energy technology to date has been on wind farms, a relatively recent development is the expansion of the micro-wind sector (turbines generating < 100 kW), and there are now over 870,000 small wind turbines (SWTs) installed globally. However, official planning guidance for SWTs in the UK and elsewhere is lacking. This may be a barrier to SWT installations if there is confusion over the requirements to gain planning permission. One reason for the lack of planning guidance is that our understanding of the wildlife impacts of SWTs is limited and therefore it is difficult to make recommendations for their mitigation. There are a range of potential negative effects wind power can exert on wildlife, in particular on birds and bats, yet to date, there has been very little published research into the wildlife impacts of SWTs. Mortality rates of wildlife at SWTs appear to be relatively low, but disturbance of bats, highly protected species, near SWTs has been previously demonstrated. However, the extent (if any) of this disturbance at habitat features of known importance was unclear. Therefore this thesis used acoustic surveys of bat activity to quantify disturbance of use of linear features (e.g. hedgerows, treelines), habitat important to bats for commuting and foraging, caused by SWTs. Firstly, bat activity did decline after experimental installation of SWTs 5m away from linear features. This decline was species-specific with Pipistrellus pygmaeus showing declines in activity in close proximity to the SWT associated with SWT operation, while P. pipistrellus activity declined in response to installation both at the SWT site and 30m away. Secondly, bat use of linear features is lower when SWTs are located nearby. In particular, P. pygmaeus activity at linear features is lower the closer a SWT is to the feature, and at high wind speeds Myotis spp. use of linear features is similarly lower where SWTs are located nearby. This disturbance did not dissipate along the linear features away from the SWT for at least 60m. This is much further than previously documented disturbance of bats by SWTs, which appeared fairly localised, and may be due to the importance of linear features specifically for commuting between habitat fragments. If so, the cumulative impacts of such disturbance will be important in areas where suitable foraging and roosting habitats is limited and fragmented, and linear features suitable for commuting between habitat fragments are already rare. These results offer support for recommendations that SWTs should be subject to siting restrictions that create a buffer distance between them and important bat habitats such as linear features. Specifically, this thesis recommends that in landscapes with few alternative commuting routes or where particularly rare bat species are present SWT installations require buffer distances to ensure they are a minimum of 60m away from linear features. There has also been a lack of research into public attitudes towards SWTs, despite local attitudes towards wind farm developments having been linked to planning outcomes, implying attitudes can be a barrier to installations. This thesis presents the results of the first survey of public attitudes specifically towards SWTs. Generally attitudes towards SWTs were positive, with over half of respondents rating SWTs as acceptable across a range of landscape settings. However, as for wind power where public attitudes in general are positive but local wind farm developments may still face opposition, only 35% of respondents were in favour of having a SWT installed in sight of their home. A key finding of this survey was that acceptance of SWTs significantly differed between landscape settings, with those in hedgerows and gardens being less well accepted compared to those on road signs, buildings and fields. Respondent comments highlighted visual impacts, efficient use of technology, noise impacts, wildlife impacts and educational value as important factors in their decisions regarding SWT acceptability. Public concern about wildlife impacts appears to be responsive to context, being important to the lower acceptance of SWTs in hedgerows, which were perceived to be particularly risky for wildlife. Potential SWT owners are also shown to be concerned about wildlife impacts from SWTs. Using a choice experiment methodology, an economics technique that allows valuation of non-market goods, farmers (a group most likely to own SWTs in the UK) were found to be willing-to-pay, through loss of SWT earnings from electricity generation, to avoid disturbance of birds and bats or collision mortality of bats. These findings also support the recommendation of the use of buffer distances for SWTs. Buffer distances between SWTs and linear features will help to alleviate public and SWT owner concerns about wildlife impacts, and also increase public acceptance of SWTs by encouraging their installation away from some of the least accepted landscape settings such as hedgerows. Further, potential SWT owners were also found to have no significant preference for avoiding siting restrictions of SWT installations, suggesting they are open to the use of buffer distances, although the suggested distances were substantially smaller than those this thesis ultimately recommends. The findings presented in this thesis have implications for planning guidance, policy makers and developers, but also raise many questions that will require further study. A list of planning guidance recommendations and a list of recommendations for future SWT research are presented in the final section.|
|Type:||Thesis or Dissertation|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.