australian wind energy conference andrew lothian wind farms & landscape resources 1 national...

Australian Wind Energy Conference Andrew Lothian Wind farms & landscape resources

1

National Assessment of the Visual Impact of Wind

Farms Dr Andrew Lothian


2

Issues

Scenic quality is regarded as subjective - “in the eyes of the beholder”.

Believed to be not possible to measure objectively and to predict likely visual impacts.


3

Issues

Visual impacts of wind farms an Australian-wide issue.

Need for credible practical method to predict likely visual impact.

Future growth & well being of industry depends on this.


4

Presentation What are landscape

resources ? Does everyone view

beauty differently? Measurement of

landscape quality What makes

landscape quality? Application to wind

farms


5

What are landscape resources?

A public resource – not private

Not diminished by use

Changed but never destroyed

A qualitative resource – dependent of human perception


6

Are landscape resources worth looking after?

Recreation and tourism

Quality of life Contribution to land

values Psychological value Image of a country Important economic,

environmental & social resource


7

What we like

Mt Ossa, Tasmania (average 8.78)

Cape Spencer (8.41)Ratings

9.68.67.86.85.95.04.23.32.31.5

Slide 120

Fre

qu

en

cy

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ratings

9.68.67.86.85.95.04.23.32.31.5

Slide 67

Fre

qu

en

cy

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


8

What we don’t like

Samphire swamps (3.93)

Gibber plain (3.39)

Ratings

9.68.67.86.85.95.04.23.32.31.5

Slide 3

Fre

qu

en

cy

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ratings

9.68.67.86.85.95.04.23.32.31.5

Slide 42

Fre

qu

en

cy

100

80

60

40

20

0


9

Does everyone view beauty differently?

Surprising as it may seem, people’s landscape preferences are similar.

Findings from S.A. study of >300 people rating 160 scenes.

Boxplot – box covers 25% to 75% of ratings, line is median, ‘whiskers’ are rangeInfluence on ratings of Age

194861407081N =

Age Categories

> 6051 - 6041 - 5031 - 4021 - 30< 20

Ratin

gs

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


10

Gender Income

Education Childhood residence

143176N =

Gender

FemalesMales

Ra

tin

gs

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Education Level

Post GradDegree/DiplYear 12Year 10Trade/Tech

Ra

tin

gs

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

843243503958N =

Income Categories

>$60k$50 - 60k$40 - 50k$30 - 40k$20 - 30k<$20k

Ra

ting

s

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

5718379N =

Categories

BothIn a cityIn the country

Ra

ting

s

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


11

Cultural Influences

Many studies compare cultural influence on landscape preferences

Example of Italians & Australians viewing scenes from both countries – differences are slight.

Studies generally show similar results between cultures

Figure 4.3 Comparison of Italian & Australian Landscape Preferences

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lake

s

Fores

ts Hills

Land

scap

e

Coun

try Cana

l

City e

dge

Ratin

g

Italians

Australians


12

The literature and my South Australian research indicates –

The similarities in people’s landscape preferences are far greater than the

differences

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder – but everyone’s eyes are similar

This similarity in preferences provides the basis for assessing landscape quality


13

How can landscape quality be measured?

Being a qualitative attribute of the environment, it does not exist outside of human perception.

It requires people to measure it.


14

Expert landscape appraisals

Studies have found that landscape appraisals by experts (e.g. landscape architects) tend to differ from the community.

Sinclair-Thomas Matrix commonly used - classifies scenic quality, scale of development, zone of visual impact, & degree of visual modification. Scorings are added together.

Scorings are ordinal ranks, cannot add them (like adding A, B, C).

We view landscapes holistically, not as parts. Results inform but do not necessarily

correspond with community preferences.


15

Science of Psychophysics A branch of psychology that provides

approach to measuring landscape quality Developed by Gustav Fechner (1801-87) Measures effect of stimuli (eg noise, taste,

sight) on the brain Based on people being reasonably consistent

in making choices among options. A person’s landscape preferences do not change widely

Group preferences follow normal bell curve distribution; means represents true value


16

Basic methodology for assessment of landscape

quality Landscape Scene -

Independent Variable

Rating of Landscape Scene

by Respondents -

Dependent Variable

Measure statistical relationships

between landscape and ratings


17

Key requirements

Colour photographs – sufficient number to cover area and range of features

Standardised format, 50 mm lens, non-artistic composition, good lateral & foreground context to scenes, single landscape unit, use typical representative scenes – avoid unusual

10 point rating scale (1 – low, 10 - high) 300 minimum raters, adults, broadly

representative of community


18

Photographs vs field assessment

Studies show that colour photographs can give similar ratings as field studies

Impractical to take large groups to rate landscape

Photographs enable widely separated locations to be rated on a comparable basis – important in wind farm evaluation

Musgraves NW S.A., SE Forests


19

South Australia’s landscape resources

Most extensive mapping of landscape quality undertaken on basis of community preferences


20

Landscape quality ratings for South Australia

Areas of ratings3 3.8% of S.A.4 46.0%5 44.1%6 2.2%7 0.5%8 0.03%Generally middle rating

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rating

%


21

Landscape quality ratingsSouth Australian coast

Lengths of coast 3 1.9% of S.A.4 0.55 0.45%6 59.8%7 29.4%8 7.9%Generally high rating

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rating

%


22

Landscape resources vs wind resources

Areas of good wind resource often coincide with high landscape value – why is this so?

Coast particularly significant – eg west coast Eyre Peninsula, lower Yorke Peninsula,

Escarpments & hills


23

Wind farms and landscape

Understanding what factors make landscape quality is important in understanding the visual impact of wind farms and how to minimise this impact

Following findings are from South Australian study

Results are broadly applicable to Australia


24

Land form Land cover Land use Water Diversity Naturalism

What creates landscape quality?


25

Land form

Flats, hills & mountains

Mean ratings-Flats 4.69Hills 5.34Mountains 7.05

MountainsHillsFlats

Rat

ings

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


26

Coastal landforms

Cliffs 8.56 Beach/rocks/cliffs 8.04 Beaches/cliffs 8.03 Beaches/dunes 7.68 Rocks/cliff 7.52 Beaches/flat hinterland

6.66

Ratin

gs

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


27

Influence of water

Water has a significant influence on ratings

Scenes with water 6.82

Scenes without water 5.31

Scenes with waterScenes without water

Ra

ting

s

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


28

Coastal scenes - factors4 factors examined for effect on ratings

Water area 15.3% Water/land edge 15.5% Water movement 8.0% Psychological impact -

serene/arousing 14.0%% over range of scores1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4

Scores

Ratin

gs

Area

Edge

Movement

Serene-Arousing


29

Influence of naturalismNaturalism is extent of natural appearance without imprint of human presence visually evident.Scored out of 5Score 1 4.60

2 5.443 5.774 6.585 8.18

Many windfarms located in remote natural areas.

Scores

54321

Ratin

gs

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


30

Influence of diversity

Scores

4321Ra

tings

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Diversity is “busyness of scene” – totality of landform, land use, vegetation, water, colour etc

Scored out of 5

Score 1 4.05 2 5.47 3 6.74 4 6.74

There were no score 5’s in S.A.


31

Implications

High quality landscapes Elevated land Water present Natural appearance DiversityThus good wind farm locations are likely to be of high landscape quality. Locationing & positioning of wind farms are thus vital factors.Relevant to coastal, agricultural and escarpment (upland) locations.


32

Potential wind farm sitesCurrent number of wind farms is only tip of the iceberg.2% renewables target could increase to 10%.Experience of growth in UK, Germany, US.

Map of wind farms in Germany Source: Pasqualetti, et al, p 84


33

Potential wind farm sites

Map indicates windy sites along coast and upland areas in South Australia.

Need to identify potential areas for wind farms


34

Measuring the likely visual impacts of wind farms

Just as landscape quality derives from people’s preferences, so the assessment of potential visual impacts of wind farms must also involve people.


35

Methodology – visual impacts

Principle is to measure landscape quality rating of scenes with and without the wind farm.

Identify potential wind farm sites with assistance of wind industry

Use digital camera and splice panoramas of scenes

Photograph up to 100 scenes per state Insert photomontages of wind farm on scene. Randomise order of scenes to avoid cognitive

analysis by raters deciding impacts.


36

Methodology – visual impacts

Respondents rate landscape quality of each scene on 1 – 10 rating scale.

Use large groups ( 300 people) Participants should be general community,

not locals or with wind industry links – they should have no interest in the outcome to avoid strategic bias.

Rating sessions in each State of scenes from that State. Include a few across all States as benchmarks. There would be too many scenes nationally (600) to cover all at one sitting.


37

Consistency of results The findings are likely to be consistent

across States for similar landscapes – eg similar ratings for coastal cliffs.

This is because it the characteristics of the scenes determine ratings, not the location. The results are therefore transferable.

State ratings are important for ownership and relevance for guidelines


38

Expected resultsGraph compares likely responses to wind farms – neutral, positive or negative, from ratings of scenes

Extent of difference indicates significance of impact.

Analysis of scenes by States and nationally.

Scene Scene Scene with without withwind farm wind farm wind farm

Mean RatingsX- X X+


39

Likely results Wind farm in natural

areas, eg coast – negative impact but this can be minimised by locating slightly inland.

Wind farm on farm land - positive impact due to added diversity

Wind farm on escarpments and hills – may be positive or negative impact


40

Landscape vs use Landscape quality is a

community resource - like air and water it exists regardless of human use.

Need to look after it as we may want to use it in the future.

Spurious to argue that if no one sees it, that scenic quality doesn’t matter. View it as a resource.


41

Use of Results Ratings will provide detailed

understanding of human perception of the visual impacts of wind farms.

This will provide basis for predicting likely community responses to wind farm proposals and indicate locations of acceptable visual impact.

State by State appraisals will provide basis for development of planning guidelines covering location, positioning and management for wind farm developers and planning authorities.


42

Conclusions Landscape quality is an

important community resource

It is a subjective quality which can be assessed objectively

Assessment of the visual impacts of wind farms would assist Australia gain their benefits while safeguarding its landscape resources

australian wind energy conference andrew lothian wind farms & landscape resources 1 national...

Documents

wind farms slide

landscape quality slide

landscape architects

landscape quality sdeveloped

peoples landscape preferences

persons landscape preferences

single landscape unit

issues tvisual impacts