effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a ... · offshore wind energy. this would...

Environmental Research Letters

Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 034012 (12pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034012

Effects of offshore wind farms on marinewildlife—a generalized impact assessmentLena Bergström1, Lena Kautsky2, Torleif Malm2, Rutger Rosenberg3,Magnus Wahlberg4, Nastassja Åstrand Capetillo2 and Dan Wilhelmsson5

1 Department of Aquatic Resources, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skolgatan 6,SE-74242 Öregrund, Sweden2 Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre, Svante Arrhenius väg 21a, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden3 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Kristineberg 566,SE-45178 Fiskebäckskil, Sweden4 Marine Biological Research Centre, University of Southern Denmark, Hindsholmsvej 11,DK-5300 Kerteminde, Denmark5 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Swedish Secretariat for Environmental Earth System Sciences,Box 50005, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden

E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected]

Received 29 November 2013, revised 25 February 2014Accepted for publication 26 February 2014Published 19 March 2014

AbstractMarine management plans over the world express high expectations to the development ofoffshore wind energy. This would obviously contribute to renewable energy production, butpotential conflicts with other usages of the marine landscape, as well as conservation interests, areevident. The present study synthesizes the current state of understanding on the effects of offshorewind farms on marine wildlife, in order to identify general versus local conclusions in publishedstudies. The results were translated into a generalized impact assessment for coastal waters inSweden, which covers a range of salinity conditions from marine to nearly fresh waters. Hence,the conclusions are potentially applicable to marine planning situations in various aquaticecosystems. The assessment considered impact with respect to temporal and spatial extent of thepressure, effect within each ecosystem component, and level of certainty. Research on theenvironmental effects of offshore wind farms has gone through a rapid maturation and learningprocess, with the bulk of knowledge being developed within the past ten years. The studiesshowed a high level of consensus with respect to the construction phase, indicating that potentialimpacts on marine life should be carefully considered in marine spatial planning. Potentialimpacts during the operational phase were more locally variable, and could be either negative orpositive depending on biological conditions as well as prevailing management goals. There waspaucity in studies on cumulative impacts and long-term effects on the food web, as well as oncombined effects with other human activities, such as the fisheries. These aspects remain keyopen issues for a sustainable marine spatial planning.

Keywords: offshore wind farm, marine ecology, environmental impact, surveillance programme,marine spatial planning

Content from this work may be used under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further

distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and thetitle of the work, journal citation and DOI.

1. Introduction

Global demand for renewable energy is increasing, as moti-vated by our challenge to reduce carbon dioxide loading

1748-9326/14/034012+12$33.00 1 c© 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034012mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 034012 L Bergström et al

and mitigate global warming, as well as to reduce risks forradioactive pollution, the dispersal of harmful substances,and the depletion of non-renewable resources. Wind energyis often described as a suitable alternative from all of theseperspectives (Martı́nez et al 2009a, 2009b, Saidur et al 2010,Esteban et al 2011, Leung and Yang 2012). Expectations onthe offshore areas are particularly high, as wind conditionsare often stronger and more stable over sea. Further, OWFcan allow for larger units and a higher total level of energyproduction, and large units may be transported and constructedmore easily (EC 2008, EWEA 2012).

Importantly, potential conflicts of interest with other sec-tors of society are also less pronounced in the marine landscapethan on land (Pedersen et al 2010). Although visual disturbancecan be decisive for the consenting processes in many cases(Zoellner et al 2008, Ladenburg 2009), conflicts of interestfurther away from land are often related to conservation andfisheries issues (OSPAR 2004, HELCOM 2010). Whereas theeffects on fisheries’ distributions and landings can be assessedby vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and spatially explicitlanding reporting, the effects on marine biodiversity are harderto encompass. Assessing effects on biodiversity is limited bothby information on natural distribution patterns of species andhabitats, and by ecological understanding of the sensitivity ofspecies to the presence of an OWF.

Our understanding on the potential effects of offshorewind farms (OWF) on the function of marine ecosystems, aswell as marine biodiversity, is steadily improving as empir-ical evidence from operational wind farms is accumulating(Leonhard et al 2011, Lindeboom et al 2011, Mann andTeilmann 2013). However, the potential risk this may entailto marine ecosystem structure and functioning are only rarelyassessed systematically, as may be required in order to informecosystem-based marine management and spatial planningefforts.

In the present study, we have synthesized the currentstate of knowledge on the effects of OWF on marine andaquatic wildlife. We based the study on published records ofempirical observations at global level, and translated the find-ings into a generalized impact assessment for Swedish waters.The Swedish coastline covers aquatic ecosystems of varioussalinity, gradually changing from marine (30h) to nearly freshwaters (2h). By this, the assessment covered various types ofecosystems, and made it possible to compare local and generalimpacts. Based on the conclusions, we highlight future keyissues for the OWF sector from the conservation perspective.

2. Methods

Information for the synthesis was obtained from empiricalstudies addressing either the effects of OWF directly, oraddressing some pressure identified as potentially influentialon marine wildlife during OWF construction or operation.These were identified by searches in scientific databases,but also by directed searches over the internet for reportsproduced by consultant agencies or governmental authoritiesin connection to monitoring programmes of existing OWFs,as these encompass a significant part of the total written

volume on the topic. An important background material inthis respect was provided by the compiled literature reviewby Wilhelmsson et al (2010). The initial material includedover 600 reports and publications. These were screened forrelevance in relation to the delineations of this study (mainpressures and ecosystem components, as outlined below).Key papers referred to in the text were selected to as far aspossible represent peer-reviewed publications, or reports sum-marizing main findings from a specific topic or surveillanceprogramme.

2.1. Generalized impact assessment

The assessment was made separately for different main pres-sures, identified as the ones most frequently mentioned inthe studied literature. For the construction phase, the mainpressures included were; acoustic disturbances and increasedsediment dispersal, and for the operational phase; habitatgain, fisheries exclusion, acoustic disturbance, and electro-magnetic fields (figure 1). In order to compare general versusmore local effects, the assessment was made separately forthree geographical subareas (see below). Effects were assessedseparately for three different ecosystem components in eachsubarea. Impacts during the third stage of an OWF life cycle,decommissioning, were not assessed, as little or no researchhas hitherto been directly dedicated to evaluating this stage.However, available studies indicate that impacts during decom-missioning are likely to be similar to those of the constructionphase.

Probable impact on marine species was assessed withrespect to the following aspects; (i) temporal extent, (ii) spatialextent, and (iii) sensitivity of species within each ecosystemcomponent. The magnitude of impact was valued by scoresfrom 1 to 3, where higher scores implied higher impact,using the categorization criteria described in table 1. In orderto facilitate comparisons across pressures and geographicalareas, the sum of all scores was calculated as an indicator ofoverall impact. A total sum of 3–4 indicated low overall impact(mainly low scores and no high scores for any of the specificaspects), whereas a total sum of 5–6 indicated moderate overallimpact (predominantly moderate scores, or high scores forone aspect combined with at least one low score for the otheraspects). A total sum of 7–9 indicated high overall impact(moderate to high scores for all aspects, or high scores formore than one aspect). In addition, the level of certainty in theassessment was evaluated based on how well the conclusionswere supported by the peer-reviewed part of literature (table 1,cf Wilhelmsson et al 2010).

2.2. Geographical area

The assessed area ranged from the Skagerrak in the NorthSea region to the inner Baltic Sea (figure 2). This wasdivided into three subareas with more similar species richnessand species composition; the Skagerrak–Kattegat coast withnear marine conditions (salinity 15–30h, hereafter SK),the Baltic Sea proper with brackish conditions (6–12h,hereafter BP) and the Gulf of Bothnia with near freshwaterconditions (2–5h, hereafter GB). The sounds connecting SKand BP are characterized by fluctuating salinity (8–15h) due

2


Figure 1. Overview of main pressures from OWF during the operational phase. Expected effect on the local abundance of marine organismsis indicated as (+) aggregation/increase, (−) avoidance/decrease.

Table 1. Criteria for assessing the probability of impact on marine life from pressures associated with offshore wind farms. The evaluationwas made separately for each pressure (acoustic disturbance during construction, sediment dispersal during construction, habitat gain,fisheries exclusion, acoustic disturbance during operation, and electromagnetic fields). Spatial extent was defined as the expected dispersalof the pressure from its source, temporal extent as its expected duration. Sensitivity was assessed in relation separately for each ecosystemcomponent (marine mammals, fish, and benthic species) and geographical area (Skagerrak–Kattegat, Baltic Proper, and Bothnian Sea). Thelevel of certainty was assessed based on the level of documentation in peer-reviewed literature.

Score Spatial extent Temporal extent Sensitivity Certainty

1 (low)


Figure 2. The assessed area was composed of the geographical subareas; Skagerrak, Kattegat including the sound area (SK in the text),Baltic Sea Proper (BS), and the Gulf of Bothnia (GB). Figures denote salinity limits (isohalines). Colour shadings indicate depth: light blue= 0–20 m, medium = 20–30 m, dark blue = 30–40 m depth. Areas with grey shading are deeper than 40 m.

local populations of harbour seal in the BP are still considerednear threatened and vulnerable, respectively (Swedish SpeciesInformation Centre 2010). Pollution and fisheries by-catch areidentified as the most important anthropogenic threats to themarine mammals (Hårding and Härkönen 1999, Härkönen andIsakson 2010).

Fish communities are the most diverse in SK, with about80–100 regularly occurring species, decreasing gradually toaround 50 species in BP and 30–50 in GB (HELCOM 2012).Marine species dominate in SK and occur increasingly side byside with species of freshwater origin in BP and GB. Manyfish populations are decimated by overfishing, especially in SKand to some extent BS (Cardinale et al 2011, Bartolino et al2012), which has also lead to cascading effects in other partsof the food web (Casini et al 2009, Eriksson et al 2011). Fishspecies often highlighted in relation to impacts from OWF are

cod (Gadus morhua), herring (Clupea harengus), eel (Anguillaanguilla) and flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes). These occur in allsubareas; however cod, eel and flatfishes are infrequent in GB(HELCOM 2012). Elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) mainlyoccur in deeper areas of SK.

Benthic species also decrease in diversity from SK to GB(HELCOM 2012). Large crustaceans, as well as many attachedinvertebrates, such as ascidians, sponges, corals, echinodermsand many molluscs are only common in SK. A dominantinvertebrate in offshore areas of BP is the blue mussel, Mytilusedulis. In the GB, attached invertebrates are scarce and mainlyrepresented by barnacles, bryozoans and hydroids (Balanusspp., Electra spp., Cordylophora spp.). A similar pattern isseen for macroalgae and submerged aquatic plants, with adecreasing structural complexity and species richness fromSK to GB.

4


Figure 3. Summary of the generalized impact assessment. Probable impacts on marine mammals (M), Fish (F) and Benthos (B) are shownfrom LOW to HIGH for the main pressures associated with OWF construction and operation. Bars show median scores for all subareas.Error bars show maximum score in any subarea (for details see tables 2–4) A minus (−) sign indicates negative impact, a plus (+) signpredominantly positive impact. Level of certainty in the assessment is indicated by the colour of each bar; black = high, striped = moderate,grey = low certainty, based on criteria shown in table 1.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characterization of available studies

Empirical research on environmental effects of OWF has hith-erto primarily been carried out in northern European marinewaters (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, UKand Sweden). Minor part of the studies has been conducted inthe brackish Baltic Sea. The research field has gone througha rapid maturation and learning process, starting around year2000. The initial years were characterized by broad monitoringprogrammes with relatively low precision, aiming at identify-ing or excluding impacts of OWF on marine species. Manyearly efforts were also aimed at developing survey methods.In later years, studies have become more targeted. Both theamount of studies, their topics and geographical coveragehas increased rapidly. One remaining limitation is that thestudies are typically restricted in spatial and temporal scope.Additionally, they have mainly focused on responses in singlespecies, with little elaboration to ecosystem and seascapescales. Moreover, there is a considerable paucity of ecologicalbaseline data for existing OWF areas, although this aspectseems to be gradually improving as more targeted monitoringprogrammes are being formed.

3.2. Construction phase

Studies on impacts during the construction phase were stronglyfocused on marine mammals, and to some extent fish. Very

few studies addressed effects on sessile species, and nonehighlighted particular risks to these. The generalized assess-ment indicated a high impact from noise on marine mammalsin all subareas, and on fish in SK. This was due to weakpopulations of many fish species that depend on shallow areasfor recruitment, e.g. cod (Hammar et al 2014). The impact onfish in the other subareas was rated moderate, and for benthoslow with low certainty, as strong differences among speciesmay be expected.

The high scores were associated to extreme noise frompile-driving, which is mainly used in the deployment of OWFbased on monopiles or jacket foundations. Pile-driving hasbeen observed to cause significant avoidance behaviour inmarine mammals (Richardson et al 1995, Carstensen et al2006, Tougaard et al 2008, Bailey et al 2010, Brandt et al 2011,Dähne et al 2013), and is highly likely to cause mortality andtissue damage in fish (Popper et al 2003, Nedwell and Howell2004, Popper and Hastings 2009). A considerably loweracoustic impact can be expected for OWF based on gravityfoundations, which do not involve pile-driving (Hammaret al 2008). In these cases, acoustic disturbance is mainlyexpected from sea floor preparing activities, such as drillingor dredging, as well as an intensified vessel traffic (expectedfor all construction types). Available studies indicate that fishand marine mammals react to low intensity noise from thesesources (Jensen et al 2009, Scheidat et al 2011, Spiga et al2012; see also review in Wahlberg and Westerberg 2005),and may respond by leaving the area. However, the intensity

5


Table 2. Synthesis of potential impact on marine life from main pressures during OWF construction. Values give scores for probable impact(1 = low, 2 = moderate, to 3 = high) in relation to each of the criteria spatial extent, temporal extent and sensitivity. ‘Total’ denotes theirsum. ‘Certainty’ indicates the level of literature documentation to support the evaluation. For definitions, see table 1. SK =Skagerrak–Kattegat, BP = Baltic Proper, GB = Gulf of Bothnia. The scores are based on a subjective evaluation of the cited literature andshould be updated as new relevant results become available. Total scores are colour coded as: 3–4 = low, 5–6 = mod, 7–9 = high.

of disturbance is low, and animals are likely to return soonafter exposure has ended. Hence, low impact can be expected,provided that significant habitats and seasons are avoided.

On the other hand, gravity foundations involve higherimpact from sediment dispersal, due to dredging. Althoughorganisms inhabiting wave-exposed sites typical for OWFestablishment can generally be expected to be tolerant ofturbidity, some studies indicate that elevated turbidity mayharm sensitive organisms, such as juvenile fish (Auld andSchubel 1978, Lake and Hinch 1999, Partridge and Michael2010). The impact of sediment dispersal was rated low tomoderate, with good to moderate certainty (table 2).

In summary, available studies suggest that constructionactivities should not take place in important recruitmentareas for marine mammals and fish, and that actions toreduce exposure to damaging noise levels should always beundertaken. For migrating species, this could potentially besolved by timing construction activities outside of biologicallysensitive periods of the year. Ways to induce avoidancebehaviour in fish and marine mammals have been addressedin some studies (Nedwell and Howell 2004, Mueller-Blenkleet al 2010, Andersson 2011). However, the ability to avoidharmful noise levels is probably reduced in young life stageswith more limited mobility (Knudsen et al 1992, Wahlbergand Westerberg 2005).

3.3. Operational phase

In contrast to the construction phase, pressures during theoperational phase entailed both positive and negative impact

(figure 3). In addition, many studies emphasized the impor-tance of local environmental conditions. This infers that thevaluation of a certain pressure into causing either positive ornegative impact is dependent on existing values and prevailingmanagement goals. At the generalized level, the probabilityof negative impact during the operational phase was ratedlow to moderate, whereas potential positive impact was ratedlow to high (tables 3 and 4). The level of certainty was lowto moderate, due to the high dependency on local conditions(variation within subareas). The result indicates a need forsystematic studies across OWFs in different settings, in orderto improve the scope for estimating outcomes under differentenvironmental conditions.

Studies on the operational phase were early focused onthe effects of habitat gain (Petersen and Malm 2006). Thesehave mainly documented the colonization and aggregation ofspecies close to the foundations, during the first years afterestablishment (e.g. Wilhelmsson et al 2006a, Maar et al 2009),although some more broad-scale studies have been conductedwith respect to fish (Hvidt et al 2006, Degraer et al 2011,Leonhard et al 2011, Bergström et al 2013). Studies onacoustic disturbance have predominantly approached effectson habitat use of harbour porpoise (Scheidat et al 2011,Teilmann and Carstensen 2012). Research has to no or littleextent investigated physiological effects on marine species,in response to e.g. elevated noise and EMF, or the effectsof habitat gain on population fitness or reproductive success(Reubens et al 2014). Obviously, empirical studies in OWFsare bound to study combined effects to various extent, as the

6


Table 3. Synthesis of potential positive impact on marine life from the OWF operational phase. For explanations to the table, see table 2.

Table 4. Synthesis of potential negative impact on marine life from main pressures during the OWF operational phase. For explanations tothe table, see table 2.

partial effects of different pressures are difficult to disentanglein real field studies (Lindeboom et al 2011).

3.3.1. Habitat gain. Habitat gain typically enhances localspecies abundances, which may entail positive or negativeimpacts on conservation and biodiversity values. This so called

artificial reef effect is well known from other anthropogenicmarine structures and is utilized to improve local habitatsfor supporting biodiversity (Mikkelsen et al 2013), tourism(Wilhelmsson et al 1998, 2006b), or fisheries (Claudet andPelletier 2004, Seaman 2007). Increased species abundanceshave been observed in several studies close to OWF founda-

7


tions (Wilhelmsson et al 2006a, Wilhelmsson and Malm 2008,Maar et al 2009, Andersson and Öhman 2010, Leonhard et al2011, Reubens et al 2011, Bergström et al 2013, Reubenset al 2013), and have typically been associated with positivevalues. However, a negative effect may emerge if the OWFwill function as introduction platforms for non-indigenousspecies (Bulleri and Airoldi 2005, Page et al 2008, Brodin andAndersson 2009). The OWF may also alter local biodiversitypatterns and lead to undesired effects, if some species arebenefited much more than others, such as jellyfish (Janßenet al 2013) or the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). The bluemussel is a dominant invertebrate species on rocky substratesin the Baltic Proper, and is often seen in high densities onturbine foundations (Wilhelmsson and Malm 2008, Maar et al2009, Malm and Engkvist 2011, Krone et al 2013). It could beadditionally benefited by predatory release, as diving ducks,which are common blue mussel feeders in the BP, may beexcluded from OWF areas (Drewitt and Langston 2006, Buschet al 2013).

Observations on increased abundances were mainly madeat small spatial scale, i.e. close to the turbines, and none ofthe reviewed studies reported impacts at entire OWF scale.This can be explained by the fact that the turbine foundations(the added habitats) typically cover only minor part of thetotal OWF area (Hammar et al 2008, Malm and Engkvist2011). It also implies that effects on species abundancesmay be left unobserved if the scale of study is not matchedwith the expected scale of impact. Studies on fish showthat several species, such as pouting (Trisopterus luscus),cod (Gadus morhua), horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus)and two spotted goby (Gobiusculus flavescens) can reside inhigh densities at distances of metres to tens of metres fromthe turbines (Wilhelmsson et al 2006a, Reubens et al 2011,Bergström et al 2013, Reubens et al 2013). For prey species,aggregation processes might also be masked by predation, ifpredatory species are attracted to the OWF area (Bergströmet al 2013). Clearly, regular fishery by an added habitat couldhave a strong effect on local fish densities, by increasing localmortality (Pickering and Whitmarsh 1997, Seaman 2007), butcreated habitats are also used as feeding areas by naturalpredators (Mikkelsen et al 2013). Such impacts, involvingfood-web interactions, can only be addressed by coordinatedstudies on different ecosystem components.

The extent of impact also depends on the relative increasein habitat complexity, in comparison to the original substrate(Charton and Ruzafa 1998, Hunter and Sayer 2009). The use ofa scour protection, which increases habitat complexity (Ham-mar et al 2008, Wilson and Elliott 2009), was probably decisivein many cases. For invertebrates, the type of construction mate-rial may influence succession patterns. Benthic communitieshave been observed to be less diverse on foundations madeof steel than of concrete (Qvarfordt et al 2006, Wilhelmssonand Malm 2008), although total abundances and biomasseswere not necessarily affected. The level of colonization ofspecies onto the new substrate is also related to the local speciespool, in particular the presence of species with motile juvenilestages. In the generalized assessment, this translated into lowerscores in the less diverse GB and BP, compared to SK, for fishand benthic species (table 3).

The hitherto observed impacts were primarily related toincreased aggregation by the turbines, reflecting behaviouralpreferences of the species. As studies have only been con-ducted during the first few years of operation, it remainsto be seen if an increase in habitat or food availability willlead to increased productivity of resource-limited populationsof time (Bohnsack 1989, Pickering and Whitmarsh 1997,Reubens et al 2014). For this to occur, conditions within theOWF would probably have to be significantly more benignthan in surrounding areas, and any negative pressures on thespecies of small magnitude within their full migration distance(Bohnsack 1989, Palumbi 2004).

3.3.2. Fisheries exclusion. Fisheries are not routinely excludedfrom OWF, but may be restricted as a consequence ofexcluding shipping for safety reasons (other than that relatedto maintenance). Fisheries exclusion is likely to increase localspecies abundances by reduced mortality rates of both targetspecies and by-catch (Leonhard et al 2011, Lindeboom et al2011, Wilhelmsson and Langhamer 2014), whereas increasesin overall productivity and potential spill over effects toadjacent areas are more uncertain (Gell and Roberts 2003).In areas where bottom-trawling were previously conducted,beneficial effects on local benthic species can be expected(Thrush and Dayton 2002). However, empirical evidence fromexisting OWF is limited, due to restrictions in study design,as available references areas have generally not allowedseparating effects of fisheries exclusion from other effects,such as habitat gain. Hence, the probability of a positiveimpact from fisheries exclusion was rated moderate to highwith low certainty (table 3). In contrast, combining OWF withfisheries may be expected to increase local mortality ratesof fish, if an increased aggregation close to the foundationsserves to enhance catch rates (Polovina 1989, Grossman et al1997, Pickering and Whitmarsh 1997, Reubens et al 2014).A particular challenge for marine spatial planning is to assessthe effects of trade-offs at a larger geographical scale. If thefisheries is reallocated to other geographical areas when anOWF is established, the new fishing area could be either lessor more resilient to fishing.

3.3.3. Acoustic disturbances. Vibrations in the turbine towersgenerated by the gearbox mesh and the generator typicallycause underwater noise of 80–150 dB re 1µPa, at wavelengthsthat are within in hearing range of both fish and mammals. Thetower will also transmit vibrations through the sea floor but thiseffect is in most cases highly local and therefore considered ofminor importance (Nedwell et al 2003, Andersson 2011). Inaddition, acoustic disturbance may increase due to increasedboat traffic for service and maintenance.

Impacts of acoustic disturbances from OWFs were eval-uated early (Nedwell et al 2003, Wahlberg and Westerberg2005, Madsen et al 2006, Tougaard et al 2009), but noempirical studies have hitherto revealed clear negative effectsof turbine-generated noise on marine species (Mueller 2008,Båmstedt et al 2009, Andersson 2011, Scheidat et al 2011).However, effects on behaviour are likely, as evident fromstudies indicating avoidance of the OWF area by harbour

8


porpoise, and possibly a habituation over time (Teilmann andCarstensen 2012). The hearing and processing of sound canbe expected to differ strongly among species (Popper andHastings 2009), many of which have not been studied, anda knowledge gap remains regarding the nature and detectionlevels of noise from wind turbines and OWF associated boattraffic (Mueller 2008 and Andersson 2011). Also, the extent ofthe pressure may vary depending on local conditions. Strongerimpacts might be expected in pristine areas compared to areaswhere ambient noise is already high (Scheidat et al 2011). Onthe other hand, the impact of cumulative effects in such areasremains unclear (Slabbekoorn et al 2010). Hence, probableimpact was rated as moderate, with low to moderate certainty(table 4).

3.3.4. Electromagnetic fields. Shielded electric transmissioncables do not directly emit electric fields, but are surroundedby magnetic fields that can cause induced electric fields inmoving water (Gill et al 2012). Probable negative impact fromelectromagnetic fields (EMF) was generally rated low, but thelevel of certainty varied among ecosystem components (Gillet al 2012). A higher score was given for fish in SK, due tothe presence of cartilaginous fish, which use electromagneticsignals in detecting prey (Gill 2005, Kimber et al 2011).EMF could also disturb fish migration patterns by interferingwith their capacity to orientate in relation to the geomagneticfield, as indicated by empirical studies on eel (Westerbergand Begout-Anras 2000, Westerberg and Lagenfelt 2008,Gill et al 2012). The extent of EMF can potentially bemitigated by adequate cable design. Only few studies haveaddressed electroreception in marine mammals (Czech-Damalet al 2012) or invertebrates (Karlsen and Aristharkhov 1985,Aristharkhov et al 1988, Bochert and Zettler 2004), and nosignificant effects have been shown to date (table 4).

4. Conclusions

Whereas the construction phase was consistently associatedwith negative impact, pressures during the operational phasemay impose both negative and positive effects, depending onlocal environmental conditions as well as prevailing manage-ment targets.

The assessment was made in three subareas with clear dif-ferences in species composition and abundance, but revealedsimilar general results. Thus, we conclude that the resultsmay also facilitate initial impact assessments in other aquaticsystems. The matrix in which the results are presented ishighly simplistic, but transparent and adjustable to a finergeographical scale where local biodiversity patterns are wellknown, as well as to knowledge increase. It may also be usedfor comparing pressures, if combined with similar impactassessments for other marine activities, such as oil and gasextractions, fisheries, aquaculture, or other options for energyprovision.

The strongest remaining uncertainties were seen foracoustic disturbances during the operational phase and effectsof fisheries exclusion. As most empirical information todayis from short-term studies in relatively small-scale OWF’s,

it is likely that conclusions made today will change wheninformation accumulates from larger OWFs, over longer timescales, or when techniques to diminish negative impactsare developed. Current studies have to no or limited extentaddressed combined effects, such as the effects of severalmarine activities within the same area, or long-term effects onthe food web.

Many potential negative effects of OWF can be reducedwithin the planning process, by avoiding important recruit-ment habitats and by timing construction activities outside ofimportant breeding seasons. Obviously, such measures shouldbe based on real knowledge on the distribution and populationstatus of local species and habitats. Given the high dependencyof the obtained conclusion on local environmental conditions,a fundamental issue for the sustainable development of OWFis the availability of reliable seafloor and habitat maps andinformation on population connectivity.

The synthesis revealed a clear scope for research toidentify holistic targets for marine management. In somecases it was not possible to value the anticipated impact intobeing either positive or negative, as this would depend onprevailing management goals. As there are obvious overalllimits to human utilization of marine landscapes, it is clearthat such comprehensive approaches are key to ensuring theirsustainable management. OWF constitute a relatively newmode of usage of marine resources, and knowledge on itsimpacts has accumulated only in recent years. In this time,however, the development has provided a significant incentivefor efforts to improve integrated coastal management strategiesand marine spatial planning, and raised issues on long-termrisks of human activities on marine habitats and species thatare highly applicable also to other marine sectors.

Acknowledgments

This study was financed by the Swedish Energy Agencythrough the Vindval research programme. We are thankfulto two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on anearlier version of this paper.

References

Andersson M H 2011 Offshore wind farms—ecological effects ofnoise and habitat alteration on fish PhD Thesis Department ofZoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, p 48

Andersson M H and Öhman M C 2010 Fish and sessile assemblagesassociated with wind-turbine constructions in the Baltic Sea Mar.Freshwater Res. 61 642–50

Aristharkhov V M, Arkhipova G V and Pashkova G K 1988Changes in common mussel biochemical parameters at combinedaction of hypoxia, temperature and magnetic field Ser.Biologisceskaja 2 238–45

Auld A H and Schubel J R 1978 Effects of suspended sediment onfish eggs and larvae: a laboratory assessment Estuar. Coast. Mar.Sci. 6 153–64

Bailey H, Senior B, Simmons D, Rusin J, Picken G andThompson P M 2010 Assessing underwater noise levels duringpile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects onmarine mammals Marine Poll. Bull. 60 888–97

9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF09117http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF09117http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0302-3524(78)90097-Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0302-3524(78)90097-Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.01.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.01.003


Båmstedt U, Larsson S and Stenman S L Å 2009 Effekter avundervattensljud från havsbaserade vindkraftverk på fisk iBottniska viken (Effects of underwater noise from offshore windfarms on fish in the Gulf of Bothnia) Naturvårdsverket. Rapport5924 (available at: www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-5924-8.pdf)

Bartolino V, Cardinale M, Svedäng H, Linderholm Hans W,Casini M and Grimwall A 2012 Historical spatiotemporaldynamics of eastern North Sea cod Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.69 833–41

Bergström L, Sundqvist F and Bergström U 2013 Effects of anoffshore wind farm on temporal and spatial patterns in thedemersal fish community Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.485 199–210

Bochert R and Zettler M L 2004 Long-term exposure of severalmarine benthic animals to static magnetic fieldsBioelectromagnetics 25 498–502

Bohnsack J A 1989 Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs theresult of habitat limitation or behavioral preference? Bull. Mar.Sci. 44 631–45

Bonsdorff E 2006 Zoobenthic diversity-gradients in the Baltic Sea:continuous post-glacial succession in a stressed ecosystemJ. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 330 383–91

Brandt M J, Diederichs A, Betke K and Nehls G 2011 Responses ofharbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns reef II offshorewind farm in the Danish North Sea Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.421 205–16

Brodin Y and Andersson M 2009 The marine splash midgeTelmatogon japonicus (Diptera; Chironomidae)-extreme andalien? Biol. Inv. 11 1311–7

Bulleri F and Airoldi L 2005 Artificial marine structures facilitatethe spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp.tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic Sea J. Appl. Ecol.42 1063–72

Busch M, Kannen A, Garthe S and Jessopp M 2013 Consequencesof a cumulative perspective on marine environmental impacts:offshore wind farming and seabirds at North Sea scale in contextof the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive Ocean CoastalManagement 71 213–24

Cardinale M, Bartolino V, Llope M, Maiorano L, Sköld M andHagberg J 2011 Historical spatial baselines in conservation andmanagement of marine resources Fish Fish. 12 289–98

Carstensen J, Henriksen O D and Teilmann J 2006 Impacts ofoffshore windfarm construction on harbour porpoises: acousticmonitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors(T-PODs) Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 321 295–308

Casini M, Hjelm J, Molinero J-C, Lövgren J, Cardinale M,Bartolino V, Belgrano A and Kornilovs G 2009 Trophic cascadespromote threshold-like shifts in pelagic marine ecosystems Proc.Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 197–202

Charton J A G and Ruzafa A P 1998 Correlation between habitatstructure and a rocky reef fish assemblage in the SouthwestMediterranean Mar. Ecol. 19 111–28

Claudet J and Pelletier D 2004 Marine protected areas and artificialreefs: a review of the interactions between management andscientific studies Aq. Liv. Res. 17 129–38

Czech-Damal N U, Liebschner A, Miersch L, Klauer G, Hanke F D,Marshall C, Dehnhardt G and Hanke W 2012 Electroreception inthe Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) Proc. R. Soc. B279 663–8

Dähne M, Gilles A, Lucke K, Peschko V, Adler S, Krügel K,Sundermeyer J and Siebert U 2013 Effects of pile-driving onharbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore windfarm in Germany Environ. Res. Lett. 8 025002

Degraer S, Brabant R and Rumes B 2011 Offshore wind farms in theBelgian part of the North Sea: selected findings from the baselineand targeted monitoring. Royal Belgian Institute of NaturalSciences. Management Unit of the North Sea MathematicalModels. Marine Ecosystem Management Unit: Brussels 157

Drewitt A L and Langston R H W 2006 Assessing the impacts ofwind farms on birds IBIS 148 29–42

EC 2008 Offshore Wind Energy: Action Needed to Deliver on theEnergy Policy Objectives for 2020 and Beyond (Brussels:Europen Commission) p 11 (available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDF)

Eriksson B, Sieben K, Eklöf J, Ljunggren L, Olsson J, Casini M andBergström U 2011 Effects of altered offshore food webs oncoastal ecosystems emphasize the need for cross-ecosystemmanagement Ambio 40 786–97

Esteban M D, Diez J J, López J S and Negro V 2011 Why offshorewind energy? Renew. Energy 36 444–50

EWEA 2012 Seanergy 2020 Delivering Offshore Electricity to theEU: Spatial Planning of Offshore Renewable Energies andElectricity Grid Infrastructures in an Integrated EU MaritimePolicy European Wind Energy Association p 80 (available at: www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea documents/documents/publications/reports/Seanergy 2020.pdf)

Gell F R and Roberts C M 2003 Benefits beyond boundaries: thefishery effects of marine reserves Trends Ecol. Evol.18 448–55

Gill A B 2005 Offshore renewable energy: ecological implicationsof generating electricity in the coastal zone J. Appl. Ecol.42 605–15

Gill A B, Bartlett M and Thomsen F 2012 Potential interactionsbetween diadromous fishes of UK conservation importance andthe electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marinerenewable energy developments J. Fish Biol. 81 664–95

Grossman G D, Jones G P and Seaman W J 1997 Do artificial reefsincrease regional fish production? A review of existing dataFisheries 22 17–23

Hammar L, Andersson S and Rosenberg R 2008 Miljömässigoptimering av fundament för havsbaserad vindkraft (Adaptingoffshore wind power foundations to local environment)Naturvårdsverket Rapport 5828, p 103 (available at: www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ISBN/5800/978-91-620-5828-9/)

Hammar L, Wikström A and Molander S 2014 Assessing ecologicalrisks of offshore wind power on Kattegat cod Renew. Energy66 414–24

Hårding K C and Härkönen T J 1999 Development in the Balticgrey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and ringed seal (Phoca hispida)populations during the 20th century Ambio 28 619–27

Hårding K C, Härkönen T J, Helander B and Karlsson O 2007Status of Baltic grey seals: population assessment and extinctionrisk NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 6 33–56

Härkönen T and Isakson E 2010 Status of harbour seals (Phocavitulina) in the Baltic proper NAMMCO Sci. Publ.8 71–6

Härkönen T, Stenman O, Jüssi M, Sagitov R and Verevkin M 1998Population size and distribution of the Baltic ringed seal (Phocahispida botnica) NAMMCO Sci. Publ. I 167–80

HELCOM 1996 Coastal and marine protected areas in the BalticSea region Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. 63 230

HELCOM 2010 Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007.HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment Balt. Sea Environ. Proc.122 68

HELCOM 2012 Checklist of Baltic Sea Macro-species Balt. SeaEnviron. Proc. 130 206

10

http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f2012-028http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f2012-028http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps10344http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps10344http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20019http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bem.20019http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2005.12.041http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2005.12.041http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08888http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08888http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9338-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9338-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01096.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01096.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.10.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.10.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00393.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00393.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps321295http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps321295http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806649105http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806649105http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1998.tb00457.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.1998.tb00457.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1051/alr:2004017http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/alr:2004017http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1127http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1127http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025002http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025002http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00516.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00516.xhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0768:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0158-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0158-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00189-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00189-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01060.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01060.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03374.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03374.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1997)0222.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1997)0222.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.024http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.024


Hunter W R and Sayer M D J 2009 The comparative effects ofhabitat complexity on faunal assemblages of northern temperateartificial and natural reefs ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 691–8

Hvidt C B, Leonhard S B, Klaustrup M and Pedersen J 2006Hydroacoustic monitoring of fish communities at offshore windfarms, Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm, Annual Report 2005Vattenfall Document No 2624-03-003 Rev2.doc p 54 (availableat: www.vattenfall.dk/da/file/Hydroacoustic-Monitoring-of-F 7840985.pdf)

Janßen H, Augustin C B, Hinrichsen H H and Kube S 2013 Impactof secondary hard substrate on the distribution and abundance ofAurelia aurita in the western Baltic Sea Marine Poll. Bull.75 224–34

Jensen F H, Bejder L, Wahlberg M, Aguilar Soto N, Johnson M andMadsen P T 2009 Vessel noise effects on delphinidcommunication Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395 161–75

Karlsen A G and Aristharkhov V M 1985 The effect of constantmagnetic field on the rate of morphogenesis in a hydroid Clavamulticornis (forskal) Zurnal Obscej Biologii 5 686–90

Kimber J, Sims D, Bellamy P and Gill A 2011 The ability of abenthic elasmobranch to discriminate between biological andartificial electric fields Mar. Biol. 158 1–8

Knudsen F R, Enger P S and Sand O 1992 Awareness reactions andavoidance responses to sound in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmosalar L J. Fish Biol. 40 523–34

Krone R, Gutow L, Joschko T J and Schröder A 2013 Epifaunadynamics at an offshore foundation—implications of future windpower farming in the North Sea Mar. Environ. Res. 85 1–12

Ladenburg J 2009 Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farmsand prior experience Appl. Energy 86 380–7

Lake R G and Hinch S G 1999 Acute effects of suspended sedimentangularity on juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Can.J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56 862–7

Leonhard S B, Stenberg C and Støttrup J 2011 Effect of the HornsRev 1 offshore wind farm on fish communities. Follow-up sevenyears after construction DTU Aqua Report No 246-2011(available at: wwwx.dtu.dk/upload/aqua/publikationer/forskningsrapporter/246-2011 effect-of-the-horns-rev-1-offshore-wind-farm-on-fish-communities.pdf)

Leung D Y C and Yang Y 2012 Wind energy development and itsenvironmental impact: a review Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.16 1031–9

Lindeboom H J et al 2011 Short-term ecological effects of anoffshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilationEnviron. Res. Lett. 6 035101

Maar M, Bolding K, Petersen J K, Hansen J L S andTimmermann K 2009 Local effects of blue mussels aroundturbine foundations in an ecosystem model of Nysted off-shorewind farm, Denmark J. Sea Res. 62 159–74

Madsen P T, Wahlberg M, Tougaard J, Lucke K and Tyack P 2006Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammalsimplications of current knowledge and data needs Mar. Ecol.Prog. Ser. 309 279–95

Malm T and Engkvist R 2011 Bentiska processer på och runtartificiella strukturer i Sveriges kustvatten (Benthic processes atand close to artificial structures in Swedish coastal waters)Naturvårdsverket Rapport 6414 p 35 (available at: www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ISBN/6400/978-91-620-6414-3/)

Mann J and Teilmann J 2013 Environmental impact of wind energyEnviron. Res Lett. 8 035001

Martı́nez E, Sanz F, Pellegrini S, Jiménez E and Blanco J 2009aLife-cycle assessment of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine:CML method Int. J. LCA 14 52–63

Martı́nez E, Sanz F, Pellegrini S, Jiménez E and Blanco J 2009bLife cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine Renew.Energy 34 667–73

Mikkelsen L, Mouritsen K N, Dahl K, Teilmann J and Tougaard J2013 Re-established stony reef attracts harbour porpoisesPhocoena phocoena Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 481 239–48

Mueller C 2008 Behavioural reactions of cod (Gadus morhua) andplaice (Pleuronectes platessa) to sound resembling offshore windturbine noise PhD Thesis Humbolt University, Berlin p 214

Mueller-Blenkle C, McGregor P K, Gill A B, Andersson M H,Metcalfe J, Bendall V, Sigray P, Wood D and Thomsen F 2010Effects of pile-driving noise on the behaviour of marine fishCOWRIE Ref: Fish 06-08, Technical Reportp 62 (available at: www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Assets/COWRIE%20FISH%2006-08 Technical%20report Cefas 31-03-10.pdf)

Nedwell J and Howell D 2004 A review of offshore windfarmrelated underwater noise sources Cowrie 544 R 0308 p 63(available at: www.subacoustech.com/information/downloads/reports/544R0308.pdf)

Nedwell J, Langworthy J and Howell D 2003 Assessment of sub-seaacoustic noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and itsimpact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwaternoise during construction of offshore windfarms, and comparisonwith background noise Cowrie 544 R 0424 p 68 (available at:ftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell et al2003%20(E68).pdf)

Nohrén E, Pihl L and Wennhage H 2009 Spatial patterns incommunity structure of motile epibenthic fauna in coastalhabitats along the Skagerrak–Baltic salinity gradient Estuar.Coast. Shelf Sci. 84 1–10

Ojaveer H, Jaanus A, MacKenzie B R, Martin G, Olenin S,Radziejewska T, Telesh I, Zettler M L and Zaiko A 2010 Statusof biodiversity in the Baltic Sea PLoS ONE 5 e12467

Olsen M T, Andersen S M, Teilmann J, Dietz R, Edrén S M C,Linnet A and Härkönen T 2010 Status of the harbor seal (Phocavitulina) in Southern Scandinavia NAMMCO Sci. Publ.8 77–94

Olsson J, Bergström L and Gårdmark A 2012 Abiotic drivers ofcoastal fish community change during four decades in the BalticSea ICES J. Mar. Sci. 69 961–70

OSPAR 2004 Problems and benefits associated with thedevelopment of offshore windfarms OSPAR Commission,Biodiversity Series ISBN 1-904426-48-4

Page H M, Culver C S, Dugan J E and Mardian B 2008Oceanographic gradients and patterns in invertebrate assemblageson offshore oil platforms ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65 851–61

Palumbi S R 2004 MARIne reserves and ocean neighborhoods: thespatial scale of marine populations and their management Annu.Rev. Environ. Resour. 29 31–68

Partridge G J and Michael R J 2010 Direct and indirect effects ofsimulated calcareous dredge material on eggs and larvae of pinksnapper Pagrus auratus J. Fish Biol. 77 227–40

Pedersen E, Forssén J and Persson Waye K 2010 Human perceptionof sound from wind turbines Naturvårdsverket Rapport 6370 p40 (available at: www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/Publications-in-English/)

Petersen J K and Malm T 2006 Offshore windmill farms: threats toor possibilities for the marine environment Ambio 35 75–80

Pickering H and Whitmarsh D 1997 Artificial reefs and fisheriesexploitation: a review of the ‘attraction versus production’debate, the influence of design and its significance for policyFish. Res. 31 39–59

Polovina J J 1989 Artificial reefs: nothing more than benthic fishaggregators ColCOFl Rep. 30 37–9

11

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp058http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp058http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.027http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.027http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08204http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08204http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1537-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1537-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02602.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02602.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.12.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.12.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f99-024http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f99-024http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/035101http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/035101http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2009.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2009.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps309279http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps309279http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035001http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035001http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0033-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0033-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.020http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.020http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps10260http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps10260ftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfftp://150.241.234.1/resto/Referencias%20BIMEP/Nedwell_et_al_2003%20(E68).pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2009.05.012http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2009.05.012http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012467http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012467http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss072http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss072http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn060http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn060http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102254http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102254http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02679.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02679.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2006)35[75:OWFTTO]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2006)35[75:OWFTTO]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(97)00019-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(97)00019-2


Popper A N, Fewtrell J, Smith M E and McCauley R D 2003Anthropogenic sound: effects on the behavior and physiology offishes Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37 35–40

Popper A N and Hastings M C 2009 The effects ofhuman-generated sound on fish Integrative Zoology 4 43–52

Qvarfordt S, Kautsky H and Malm T 2006 Development of foulingcommunities on vertical structures in the Baltic Sea. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.67 618–28

Reubens J T, Braeckman U, Vanaverbeke J, Van Colen C, Degraer Sand Vincx M 2013 Aggregation at windmill artificial reefs:CPUE of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and pouting (Trisopterusluscus) at different habitats in the Belgian part of the North SeaFish. Res. 139 28–34

Reubens J T, Degraer S and Vincx M 2011 Aggregation and feedingbehaviour of pouting (Trisopterus luscus) at wind turbines in theBelgian part of the North Sea Fish. Res. 108 223–7

Reubens J T, Degraer S and Vincx M 2014 The ecology ofbenthopelagic fishes at offshore wind farms: a synthesis of 4years of research Hydrobiologia 1–16

Richardson W J, Greene C R, Malme C I, Thomson D H, Moore Sand Wursig B 1995 Marine Mammals and Noise (London:Academic)

Saidur R, Islam M R, Rahim N A and Solangi K H 2010 A reviewon global wind energy policy Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.14 1744–62

Scheidat M, Tougaard J, Brasseur S, Carstensen J,van Polanen Petel T, Teilmann J and Reijnders P 2011 Harbourporpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and wind farms: a case study inthe Dutch North Sea Environ. Res. Lett. 6 025102 6

Seaman W 2007 Artificial habitats and the restoration of degradedmarine ecosystems and fisheries Hydrobiologia 580 143–55

Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, ten Cate Cand Popper A N 2010 A noisy spring: the impact of globallyrising underwater sound levels on fish Trends Ecol. Evol.25 419–27

Snoeijs P 1999 Marine and brackish waters Acta Phytog. Suec.84 187–212

Spiga I, Fox J and Benson R 2012 Potential effects of long-termexposure to boat noise on the growth, survival, and nutrientretention in juvenile fish The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Lifeed A N Popper and A D Hawkins (Berlin: Springer) pp 255–7

Swedish Species Information Centre 2010 The red list www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/

Teilmann J and Carstensen J 2012 Negative long term effects onharbour porpoises from a large scale offshore wind farm in theBaltic—evidence of slow recovery Environ. Res. Lett. 7 045101

Thrush S F and Dayton P K 2002 Disturbance to marine benthichabitats by trawling and dredging: implications for marinebiodiversity Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3373 449–4

Tougaard J, Henriksen O D and Miller L A 2009 Underwater noisefrom three offshore wind turbines: estimation of impact zones forharbor porpoises and harbor seals J. Acoust. Soc. Am.125 3766–73

Tougaard J, Madsen P T and Wahlberg M 2008 Underwater noisefrom construction and operation of offshore wind farmsBioacoustics 17 143–6

Wahlberg M and Westerberg H 2005 Hearing in fish and theirreactions to sounds from offshore wind farms Mar. Ecol. Prog.Ser. 288 295–309

Westerberg H and Begout-Anras M 2000 Orientation of silver eel(Anguilla anguilla) in a disturbed geomagnetic field Advances inFish Telemetry: Proc. 3rd Conf. on Fish Telemetry Centre forEnvironment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Lowestoft)ed A Moore and I Russel pp 149–58

Westerberg H and Lagenfelt I 2008 Sub-sea power cables and themigration behaviour of the European eel Fish. Manag. Ecol.15 369–75

Wilhelmsson D and Langhamer O 2014 The influence of fisheriesexclusion and addition of hard substrata on fish and crustaceansMarine Renewable Energy Technology and EnvironmentalInteractions ed M A Shields and A I L Payne (Berlin: Springer)pp 49–60

Wilhelmsson D and Malm T 2008 Fouling assemblages on offshorewind power plants and adjacent substrata Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.79 459–66

Wilhelmsson D, Malm T and Öhman M C 2006a The influence ofoffshore wind power on demersal fish ICES J. Mar. Sci.63 775–84

Wilhelmsson D et al 2010 Greening Blue Energy: Identifying andmanaging the biodiversity risks and opportunities of offshorerenewable energy IUCN Gland, Switzerland

Wilhelmsson D, Öhman M C, Ståhl H and Shlesinger Y 1998Artificial reefs and dive tourism in Eilat, Israel Ambio 27 764–6

Wilhelmsson D, Yahya S A S and Öhman M C 2006b Effects ofhigh-relief structures on cold temperate fish assemblages: a fieldexperiment Mar. Biol. Res. 2 136–47

Wilson J C and Elliott M 2009 The habitat-creation potential ofoffshore wind farms Wind Energy 12 203–12

Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P and Wemheuer C 2008 Publicacceptance of renewable energies: results from case studies inGermany Energy Policy 36 4136–41

12

http://dx.doi.org/10.4031/002533203787537050http://dx.doi.org/10.4031/002533203787537050http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00134.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00134.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.10.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.10.011http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.11.025http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.11.025http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.007http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.007http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/025102http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/025102http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0457-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0457-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.005http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://www.slu.se/en/collaborative-centres-and-projects/artdatabanken/the-red-list/http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045101http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045101http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150515http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150515http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3117444http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3117444http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2008.9753795http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2008.9753795http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps288295http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps288295http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00630.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00630.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.020http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.020http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.02.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.02.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17451000600684359http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17451000600684359http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.324http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.324http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.026http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.026

Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a generalized impact assessmentIntroductionMethodsGeneralized impact assessmentGeographical areaEcosystem components assessed

Results and discussionCharacterization of available studiesConstruction phaseOperational phase

ConclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferences