onshore wind farm case study

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Factors affecting the community acceptance of onshore wind farms: a case study of the zhongying wind farm in eastern china.

1. Introduction

• What factors influence community acceptance of wind farms?
• How do these factors interact and form the background of community acceptance?
• What are the possible recommendations for improving community acceptance of wind farms through the optimization of planning procedures?

2. Methodology

3.1. category of factors, 3.2. variance analysis, 3.3. regression analysis, 3.3.1. information, 3.3.2. compensation, 3.3.3. visual angle, 3.3.4. noise, 3.4. environmental impacts and accompanied annoyances, 4. discussion, 4.1. significant variables in the regression model, 4.2. location-related factors, 4.3. demographic factors, 4.4. environmental impact factors, 4.5. public participation factors, 4.6. limitation in this research, 5. conclusions and recommendations, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, appendix a. questionnaire for inhabitants around zhongying wind farm in ningbo, china.

• Your age: (1) <18 (2) 18–30 (3) 30–40 (4) 40–50 (5) 50–60 (6) >60
• Your gender: (1) Male (2) Female
• What is your marital status? (1) Single (2) Married (3) Divorced (4) Widowed (5) Other
• Your educational background: (1) Primary school or lower (2) Middle school (3) High school (4) Professional academy (5) University or higher (6) Other
• Your job:____________________________________________________________________________
• How long do you live here? (1) <1 year (2) 1–5 years (3) 5–10 years (4) 10–20 years (5) >20 years
• Do you know about Zhongying Wind Farm Project? (1) I know clearly (2) I know about it (3) Not very familiar (4) I don’t know it at all
• The distance from your residence to the nearest wind turbine: (1) <500 m (2) 500–1000 m (3) 1000–3000 m (4) >3000 m
• Visibility of the wind turbines from your residence: (1) Invisible (2) Small part visible (3) Most visible (4) Fully exposed
• Does the environmental impact (noise, flicker) of the wind farm affect your life? (1) Not at all (2) It has a certain impact (3) Medium impact (4) Unbearable impact (5) Other thoughts ____________________________________________________________________________________
• How long you are affected by the wind farm each day? (1) None at all (2) <1 h (3) 1–3 h (4) 3–5 h (5) 5–8 h (6) >8 h
• What is your opinion on the visual impact of the wind farm? (1) No impact (2) Positive impact (3) Have negative effects (4) Not clear
• Does the wind farm project have compensation measures for surrounding residents? (1) No compensation (2) Yes ____________________________________________________ (3) Unknown
• Your opinions and suggestions on wind farm planning: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council). Global Wind Report 2019 ; GWEC: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
• GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council). Global Wind Energy Outlook 2016 ; GWEC: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
• REN21. REN21-2019 Global Status Report ; REN21: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 978-3-9818911-7-1. [ Google Scholar ]
• CNREC. China Energy Policy Newsletter-Boosting Renewable Energy as Part of China’s Energy Revolution, June 2020 ; CNREC: Beijing, China, 2020.
• Diógenes, J.R.F.; Claro, J.; Rodrigues, J.C.; Loureiro, M.V. Barriers to onshore wind energy implementation: A systematic review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020 , 60 , 1–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.; Ren, X.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Chen, X. Analysis and recommendations for onshore wind power policies in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 82 , 156–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, Q.; Jiaqi, L.; Mengye, Z. Wind Curtailment in China and Lessons from the United States ; China’s Energy in Transition Series: Beijing, China, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson, M. Regulatory and Technical Barriers to Wind Energy Integration In Northeast China ; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dai, J.; Yang, X.; Wen, L. Development of wind power industry in China: A comprehensive assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 97 , 156–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Kitson, L.; Bridle, R.; Gass, P.; Attwood, C. Wind Power in China: A Cautionary Tale ; International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao, Z.Y.; Yan, H.; Zuo, J.; Tian, Y.X.; Zillante, G. A critical review of factors affecting the wind power generation industry in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013 , 19 , 499–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, T.; Liu, P.; Li, Z. A multi-period and multi-regional modeling and optimization approach to energy infrastructure planning at a transient stage: A case study of China. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020 , 133 , 106673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CNEA. The 13th Wind Energy Five-Year Plan (2016–2020) ; CNEA (Chinese National Energy Administration): Beijing, China, 2016.
• Guan, J. Lessons from German On-shore wind farm planning. In Proceedings of the Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Hamburg, Germany, 25–28 September 2018; Volume 1102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roddis, P.; Carver, S.; Dallimer, M.; Norman, P.; Ziv, G. The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis. Appl. Energy 2018 , 226 , 353–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammami, S.M.; Chtourou, S.; Triki, A. Identifying the determinants of community acceptance of renewable energy technologies: The case study of a wind energy project from Tunisia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016 , 54 , 151–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eichhorn, M.; Masurowski, F.; Becker, R.; Thrän, D. Wind energy expansion scenarios—A spatial sustainability assessment. Energy 2019 , 180 , 367–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007 , 35 , 2683–2691. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dear, M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1992 , 58 , 288–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolsink, M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000 , 21 , 49–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolsink, M. Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 2007 , 35 , 2692–2704. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swofford, J.; Slattery, M. Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 2010 , 38 , 2508–2519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrova, M.A. NIMBYism revisited: Public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2013 , 4 , 575–601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oxford English Dictionary NIMBYism. Available online: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/245895?redirectedFrom=NIMBY#eid (accessed on 24 August 2020).
• Burningham, K.; Barnett, J.; Thrush, D. The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: A Literature Review ; University of Manchester: Manchester, UK, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rand, J.; Hoen, B. Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017 , 29 , 135–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Cilleruelo, E.; Zamanillo, I. Public acceptance of renewables and the media: An analysis of the Spanish PV solar experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011 , 15 , 4685–4696. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Owens, S.; Driffill, L. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy 2008 , 36 , 4412–4418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geraint, E.; Gianluca, F. The Social Acceptance of Wind Energy: JRC Science for Policy Report ; European Commission: Brusseles, Belgium, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlman, I. Wind energy potential in Sweden: The importance of non-technical factors. Pap. Present. Int. Symp. Wind Energy Syst. 1982 , 21 , 335–348. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolsink, M. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012 , 16 , 822–835. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrova, M.A. From NIMBY to acceptance: Towards a novel frmawork for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy 2016 , 86 , 1280–1294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simcock, N. Procedural justice and the implementation of community wind energy projects: A case study from South Yorkshire, UK. Land Use Policy 2016 , 59 , 467–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yuan, X.; Zuo, J.; Huisingh, D. Social acceptance of wind power: A case study of Shandong Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 92 , 168–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Y.; Ru, P.; Su, J.; Anadon, L.D. Not in my backyard, but not far away from me: Local acceptance of wind power in China. Energy 2015 , 82 , 722–733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jobert, A.; Laborgne, P.; Mimler, S. Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 2007 , 35 , 2751–2760. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, C.R.; Eiser, J.R. Understanding “local” opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy 2010 , 38 , 3106–3117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Friedl, C.; Reichl, J. Realizing energy infrastructure projects-A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance. Energy Policy 2016 , 89 , 184–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caporale, D.; de Lucia, C. Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 52 , 1378–1390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Painuly, J.P. Barriers to renewable energy penetration: A framework for analysis. Renew. Energy 2001 , 24 , 73–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Musall, F.D.; Kuik, O. Local acceptance of renewable energy-A case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 2011 , 39 , 3252–3260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ntanos, S.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Chalikias, M.; Arabatzis, G.; Skordoulis, M.; Galatsidas, S.; Drosos, D. A social assessment of the usage of renewable energy sources and its contribution to life quality: The case of an attica urban area in Greece. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 1414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Devine-Wright, P. Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: A critical review. In Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy ; Jamasb, T., Grubb, M., Pollitt, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leiren, M.D.; Aakre, S.; Linnerud, K.; Julsrud, T.E.; di Nucci, M.R.; Krug, M. community acceptance of wind energy developments: Experience from wind energy scarce regions in Europe. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 1754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wolsink, M. 303 wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007 , 11 , 1188–1207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manyoky, M.; Wissen Hayek, U.; Pieren, R.; Heutschi, K.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Evaluating a visual-acoustic simulation for wind park assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016 , 153 , 180–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tabassum, A.; Premalatha, M.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Wind energy: Increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014 , 31 , 270–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.; Wang, S. Impacts of wind energy on environment: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 49 , 437–443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kokologos, D.; Tsitoura, I.; Kouloumpis, V.; Tsoutsos, T. Visual impact assessment method for wind parks: A case study in Crete. Land Use Policy 2014 , 39 , 110–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cornwall Council. An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to On-Shore Wind Energy and Large-Scale Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall ; Cornwall Council: Cornwall, UK, 2013.
• Beauchamp, G.; Armstrong, W.; Buchan, N. Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance ; SNH Commissioned Report: Dochgarroch, UK; Edinburgh, UK, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maehr, A.M.; Watts, G.R.; Hanratty, J.; Talmi, D. Emotional response to images of wind turbines: A psychophysiological study of their visual impact on the landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015 , 142 , 71–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Land Use Consultants. Brechfa Forest East Wind Farm Volume 1: Environmental Statement ; Land Use Consultants: London, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katsaprakakis, D.A. A review of the environmental and human impacts from wind parks. A case study for the Prefecture of Lasithi, Crete. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012 , 16 , 2850–2863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herbrandson, C.; Messing, R. Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines ; Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division: St Paul, MN, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker, C.; Baxter, J.; Mason, S.; Luginaah, I.; Ouellette, D. Wind energy development and perceived real estate values in Ontario, Canada. AIMS Energy 2014 , 2 , 424–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, C.R.; Orr, B.J.; Eiser, J.R. When is enough, enough? Identifying predictors of capacity estimates for onshore wind-power development in a region of the UK. Energy Policy 2011 , 39 , 4563–4577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hübner, G.; Pohl, J. Mehr Abstand–Mehr Akzeptanz? Ein umweltpsychologischer Studienvergleich ; Fachagentur Windenergie an Land: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Groth, T.M.; Vogt, C. Residents’ perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan. Energy Policy 2014 , 65 , 251–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Enevoldsen, P.; Sovacool, B.K. Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016 , 53 , 178–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bassi, S.; Bowen, A.; Fankhauser, S. The Case for and Against Onshore Wind Energy in the UK ; Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Environment Policy Brief: London, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devlin, E. Factors Affecting Public Acceptance of Wind Turbines in Sweden ; Lunds University: Lund, Sweden, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frate, C.A.; Brannstrom, C. How do stakeholders perceive barriers to large-scale wind power diffusion? A q-method case study from Ceará State, Brazil. Energies 2019 , 12 , 2063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pedersen, E.; van den Berg, F.; Bakker, R.; Bouma, J. Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009 , 126 , 634–643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Scottish Natural Heritage. Visual Representation of Wind Farms ; Scottish Natural Heritage: Inverness, UK, 2017; pp. 1–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Renterghem, T.; Bockstael, A.; de Weirt, V.; Botteldooren, D. Annoyance, detection and recognition of wind turbine noise. Sci. Total Environ. 2013 , 456 , 333–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Arezes, P.M.; Bernardo, C.A.; Ribeiro, E.; Dias, H. Implications of wind power generation: Exposure to wind turbine noise. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 109 , 390–395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pedersen, E.; Waye, K.P. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007 , 64 , 480–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jones, C.R.; Eiser, J.R. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 2009 , 37 , 4604–4614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bolin, K.; Bluhm, G.; Eriksson, G.; Nilsson, M.E. Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: Exposure and health effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011 , 6 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Shang, H.; Bishop, I.D. Visual thresholds for detection, rrcognition and visual impact in landscape settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000 , 20 , 125–140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lantz, E.; Flowers, L. Social Acceptance “Winning Hearts and Minds” State-Of-The-Art Report ; The International Energy Agency: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnarova, K.; Sklenicka, P.; Stiborek, J.; Svobodova, K.; Salek, M.; Brabec, E. Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Appl. Energy 2012 , 92 , 269–278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Strumse, E. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996 , 16 , 17–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.; Guo, S.; Cui, L.; Yan, J.; Liu, J.; Wang, B. Review of renewable energy industry in Beijing: Development status, obstacles and proposals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 43 , 711–725. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devine-Wright, P. Energy citizenship: Psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In Governing Technology for Sustainability ; Murphy, J., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2007; pp. 63–88. ISBN 9781844073450. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine-Wright, P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development:Exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environ. 2005 , 10 , 57–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jami, A.A.N.; Walsh, P.R. The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada. Renew. Energy 2014 , 68 , 194–202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lane, M.B. Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Aust. Geogr. 2005 , 36 , 283–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Firestone, J.; Bates, A.; Knapp, L.A. See me, feel me, touch me, heal me: Wind turbines, culture, landscapes, and sound impressions. Land Use Policy 2015 , 46 , 241–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Guan, J.; Zepp, H. Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 6894. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176894

Guan J, Zepp H. Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China. Sustainability . 2020; 12(17):6894. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176894

Guan, Jinjin, and Harald Zepp. 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China" Sustainability 12, no. 17: 6894. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176894

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Close search
• Find a journal
• Search calls for papers
• Journal Suggester
• Open access publishing

We’re here to help

Find guidance on Author Services

Open access

Developing onshore wind farms in Aotearoa New Zealand: carbon and energy footprints

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2024.2344785

Introduction

Life cycle assessment of onshore wind farms: an overview, results and discussion, conclusion and prospects.

• Supplemental material

Acknowledgements

Disclosure statement, additional information.

• Full Article
• Figures & data
• Supplemental
• Reprints & Permissions
• View PDF PDF View EPUB EPUB

In recognition of deeper insights into the implications of wind farm deployments, this paper addresses the need for an updated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for onshore wind generation systems, using 4.3 MW wind turbines and direct drive permanent magnet synchronous generators. The environmental and energy performances were estimated through an LCA for an onshore wind plant under construction in Aotearoa New Zealand with a total nameplate capacity of 176 MW. This study used real construction data showing literature data overestimates civil works and underestimates transportation contributions in the wind farm footprint. Further, different end-of-life management alternatives for turbine blades are analysed: landfill, mechanical recycling, and chemical recycling. The results indicate a carbon footprint of 10.8–9.7 gCO 2eq /kWh, a greenhouse gas payback time of 1.5–1.7 years for avoided combined cycle gas turbines, and an energy payback time of 0.4–0.5 years, in which the chemical recycling of the blades is the lower emission solution overall. The outcomes underscore the environmental efficiency of onshore wind farms and their important role in the energy transition. Notably, the manufacturing of wind turbines is the primary contributor to the carbon and energy footprints, highlighting a critical area for targeted environmental mitigation strategies.

• Wind energy
• permanent magnet
• blade recycling
• greenhouse gas emissions
• energy return on investment
• life cycle assessment

Energy systems are going through profound changes, as significant efforts are dedicated to reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing energy efficiency, and rapid deployment of renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind generation. Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to the energy transition, with a target of 100% renewable electricity generation by 2030 (Minister of Climate Change Citation 2022 ), and net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, except for biogenic methane (New Zealand Government Citation 2019 ). Wind energy is expected to be an essential technology for the expansion of electrification and deployment of renewables in Aotearoa New Zealand. Indeed, all future energy scenarios modelled by different organisations foresee a steep increase in the installed capacity of wind energy generation (Pincelli et al. Citation 2024 ).

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the deployment of onshore wind plants started in 1993 (Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment Citation 2022 ), but the wind industry deployment accelerated from 2004 with the adoption of wind turbines with nominal capacities larger than 1 MW (Zhang et al. Citation 2023 ). By 2023 the onshore wind installed capacity reached 1 GW. The capacity factor of wind generation in the country is very high averaging 41%, almost twice the global average (Zhang et al. Citation 2023 ), making the country very suitable for wind generation. Indeed, there are several ongoing projects in different stages of execution for new onshore wind plants in Aotearoa New Zealand that could add 2.2 GW to the installed capacity (New Zealand Wind Energy Association Citation n.d. ). By 2050, it is estimated the onshore wind installed capacity could reach nearly 6 GW (Pincelli et al. Citation 2024 ).

The energy transition is further accelerated by the continued decreasing costs of wind generation and other renewable technologies (He et al. Citation 2020 ). The increase in rotor sizes is a crucial contributor, as larger rotors harness more energy while saving expenses during the operational and management phase and balance of the system (Johnson et al. Citation 2019 ). Wind turbine technology designs are characterised as either gearbox or direct drive; in the latter, the generator is directly connected to the hub without a gearbox (Das and Nandi Citation 2022 ). The two technical designs differ significantly in mass and material composition (Carrara et al. Citation 2020 ). The permanent magnet synchronous generator is the most common direct drive technology (PMS-DD), as it requires low maintenance and has high efficiency. Moreover, the overall weight of wind PMS-DD turbines is lighter, as they do not require gearboxes (Carrara et al. Citation 2020 ). However, they are more expensive (Moghadam and Nejad Citation 2020 ). For onshore applications, PMS-DD turbines have been securing a larger market presence, yet their adoption is still not widespread, and the traditional gearbox configuration prevails (Carrara et al. Citation 2020 ).

Wind energy generates minimal environmental impacts during the operational phase (Das and Nandi Citation 2022 ). However, wind turbines and other components of an onshore wind plant have embedded environmental footprints associated with their production, as well as plant construction and decommission. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a widely used environmental impact assessment method, offers a comprehensive approach to estimate the environmental impacts of products or services throughout their entire life cycle. The carbon footprint and energy requirements of the life cycles of onshore wind plants have been substantially studied within the scientific community. Manufacturing wind turbines has been reported as the major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the results in the literature for the carbon footprint of onshore wind plants vary from 3.3 (Tahtah et al. Citation 2022 ) to 70 (Nassar et al. Citation 2024 ) gCO 2eq /kWh, influenced by different factors such as technology employed, power plant capacity, turbine nominal capacity, site location, and temporal analysis resolution. These considerable variations in reported GHG emissions of onshore wind systems contribute to a lack of consensus on the environmental burdens and benefits of wind systems. It has been previously noticed that, in general, the median values of GHG emissions decrease with the rise in the nominal capacity of wind turbines (Mendecka and Lombardi Citation 2019 ). However, most LCA studies for onshore wind plants consider wind turbines with a low nominal capacity of up to 2.5 MW, and fewer studies have analysed larger wind turbines (Mendecka and Lombardi Citation 2019 ).

As the deployment of wind energy rises, the amount of generated turbine waste increases. Thus, ensuring sustainable end-of-life management is crucial. While recycling metals and rare earth elements is feasible, blades, on the other hand, are made of materials that are difficult to recycle, often leading to their disposal in landfills or incineration (Nagle et al. Citation 2020 ). Technologies for recycling blades have been developed (Yang et al. Citation 2023 ), but are not feasible yet because of their level of maturity, high costs, or lack of a market for secondary materials (Jensen Citation 2019 ; Yang et al. Citation 2023 ). Therefore, assessing the environmental performance of end-of-life management strategies for turbine blades has become relevant, with recent advances in the life cycle benefits of recycling blades (Diez-Cañamero and Mendonza Citation 2023 ; Sproul et al. Citation 2023 ; Yang et al. Citation 2023 ). However, most LCA studies for onshore wind farms have overlooked mechanical and chemical recycling solutions for the blades, considering only a linear production system in which they are disposed of (Das and Nandi Citation 2022 ; Elmariami et al. Citation 2023 ; Nassar et al. Citation 2024 ).

Objectives of the study

This paper provides a comprehensive LCA of an onshore wind farm under development in Aotearoa New Zealand, and more specifically contributes to updating the environmental performance of onshore wind systems by considering the PMS-DD technology and a nominal capacity of 4.3 MW for the individual wind turbines, as most the literature focuses only on small turbines. Another significant contribution of the study is the utilisation of original real data for the construction phase, including transportation activities. The study enhances the literature by exploring different end-of-life management strategies for blades. Given the predominant linear production system for blades, with recycling efforts only recently emerging, it becomes crucial to assess their environmental performance thoroughly.

Table 1. Review of relevant and recent LCA studies for onshore wind farms.

Most studies considered a system boundary from cradle-to-grave, including material extraction and processing, component manufacture, transportation, installation and construction, operation and maintenance, dismantling, and end-of-life management. However, few studies comprehensively included the impacts of wind farm infrastructure construction and installation, such as civil and electrical works and project management (Alsaleh and Sattler Citation 2019 ; Li et al. Citation 2021 ). Other studies rely on the Ecoinvent database for modelling the wind farm components and phases. However, that might lead to a potential overestimation of certain impacts because of the rapid evolution of the technologies (Cassoret et al. Citation 2023 ).

The literature review shows that despite industry advancements in increasing wind turbine sizes, most LCA studies have considered turbines up to 2 MW of nominal generation capacity (see Table 1 ). The environmental performance of different wind turbine technology designs has been previously analysed (Schreiber et al. Citation 2019 ). However, apart from the reported research of Das and Nandi ( Citation 2022 ) and Şentürk et al. ( Citation 2021 ), most reviewed LCA studies for onshore wind farms only considered wind turbines with gearboxes or overlooked the design technology.

Specific within the Aotearoa New Zealand context, Rule et al. ( Citation 2009 ) estimated the life cycle GHG emissions and energy demand for wind energy systems. More recently, a simplified LCA model has been proposed to generate energy and carbon indicators, which is based on correlations of the dimensions and weights of the components of turbines rather than a comprehensive process-based LCA (Walmsley et al. Citation 2017 ).

The Siemens-Gamesa and Vestas wind turbine manufacturers offer LCA or Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) analyses for their wind turbines, encompassing various turbine sizes, including larger ones. However, for onshore applications, their considerations are limited to the gearbox technology design only.

Another limitation observed in prior LCA studies conducted for onshore wind farms is the exclusion of alternative end-of-life management strategies for wind turbine blades beyond landfilling and incineration (see Table 1 ). Basosi et al. ( Citation 2020 ) and Alsaleh and Sattler ( Citation 2019 ) assumed a recycling rate for blades, yet notably omitted substantial information regarding the recycling process technologies employed, the underlying assumptions and data utilised, nor did they elaborate on the results and discussion about blade recycling. Thus, those previous studies lack crucial insights into the frameworks and implications of recycling blades.

Recent efforts have been made to understand the environmental performance of alternatives for the end-of-life management of blades through specialised LCA studies focusing specifically on this aspect (Diez-Cañamero and Mendonza Citation 2023 ; Sproul et al. Citation 2023 ; Yang et al. Citation 2023 ). Recycling technologies for post-consumer blades, such as mechanical and chemical recycling, remain infeasible due to varying levels of maturity, cost competitiveness, and market availability (Yang et al. Citation 2023 ). Nevertheless, it is anticipated that these technologies will advance over time. Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate them into LCA studies for onshore wind farms to accurately evaluate their potential environmental benefits and inform decisions.

Summarising, the conducted literature review reveals gaps that limit a comprehensive understanding of the environmental impacts of wind farms. First, studies tend to overlook the implications of larger turbines, which are becoming increasingly prevalent in the wind energy sector. Second, the choice of turbine technology is also commonly disregarded, and greater attention needs to be paid to permanent magnet direct drive generators. Another significant oversight is the lack of investigation into blade recycling routes, despite the growing importance of sustainable end-of-life management within the wind energy sector. This study addresses these gaps by contributing to the development of a more comprehensive LCA for wind farms.

Review of results for life cycle greenhouse emissions

Figure 1. Results from the literature for overall life cycle GHG emissions of onshore wind farms and the contributors to the emissions. Some values were approximated.

The manufacturing phase has been reported as the primary contributor to GHG emissions ( Figure 1 ). Materials extraction and processing, and the production of wind turbines encompass approximately 90% of the life cycle GHG emissions of onshore wind farms (Kadiyala et al. Citation 2017 ).

Figure 2. Life cycle assessment (LCA) framework, based on ISO 14040 (2006).

The functional unit is 1 kWh of electricity generated (assuming a 30-year operational life).

System description

Figure 3. Location of the developed wind farm pinpointed, in Hastings District, in light blue, 35 km northwest of Napier City, in red.

Table 2. Key parameters of the onshore wind plant.

Table 3. specifications of the components for the onshore wind plant., table 4. technical specification for the wind turbines..

Figure 4. LCA system boundary adopted for the onshore wind farm study.

Table 5. Inventory for PMSG-DD wind turbine manufacturing.

Inventory data for the material composition of the cables were taken from product specifications. The data for the transformer was approximated with the transformer used in the study of Vélez-Henao and Vivanco ( Citation 2021 ). Support information 2 presents the data utilised for manufacturing cables and transformers.

The foundation is made of concrete and steel. The concrete is produced on-site, assuming that steel and cement are sourced mainly in the Hawkes Bay region. The wind farm project reduced the concrete and steel requirement for the foundations (Batters Citation 2023 ). The data for the foundation were collected from the farm developers and aggregated within civil works during the construction phase.

The site construction work constitutes soil removal for the tower installation, mounting mobile cranes, concrete foundations, access road construction, laying and installation of cables, and usage of energy and electricity for other purposes. Detailed data were obtained directly from the wind farm developer for civil works, electrical works, project management, and turbine works. The data specified the material demand, fuel consumption in equipment, electricity usage, and waste management.

For the operational and maintenance (O&M) phase, the following activities were considered: change of lubricants and motor oils, and turbine inspections. Turbine inspections were assumed to occur twice a year per turbine in a passenger vehicle (Vélez-Henao and Vivanco Citation 2021 ). It is assumed that 33% of the blades, and 15% of the generator, nacelle, and hub system are replaced over the lifetime (Vélez-Henao and Vivanco Citation 2021 ).

Wind turbines are decommissioned when the onshore wind farm reaches the end-of-life. In the decommissioning phase, foundations and access roads are assumed to remain on site. It was assumed that decommissioning the farm requires the same amount of electricity and mounting mobile crane usage as for constructing it.

The components are dismantled, the recyclable materials are recycled, and the non-recyclable waste is disposed of in landfills. Recycling some of the turbine components and materials is relatively simple because the recycling processes for those materials are already established. Metals and bulk materials, such as steel, copper, and aluminium, are assumed to be recycled with a recycling rate of 90%. Recycling rare earth elements has been minimal across different industry sectors (Jensen Citation 2019 ). However, recycling rare earth elements from permanent magnets in wind turbine generators is more feasible because of their large size, accessibility, and disassembly procedures (Jensen Citation 2019 ). A recycling rate of 81% is assumed for neodymium, dysprosium, and boron, as it is economically viable to recycle large amounts of permanent magnets (Reimer et al. Citation 2018 ). The composite materials used for making the blades are the most difficult to recycle.

Table 6. Parameters for the end-of-life management solutions of the blades.

For the background data, the Ecoinvent v.3.9.1 database was utilised. The electricity grid mix and industrial heat specific for the regions where the components are manufactured were used.

Impact assessment

The climate change impact category was selected to analyse the environmental impacts of the onshore wind farm, for which the indicator global warming potential (GWP100) was used. The GWP measures lifecycle GHG emissions in kg CO 2eq , using the IPCC (GTP100) method. The cumulative energy demand (CED) was also included as part of the lifecycle energy analyses.

The GPBT was calculated considering avoided emissions from consuming electricity from the grid (Fonseca and Carvalho Citation 2022 ), as well as from gas turbines, as in the Aotearoa New Zealand context the generated electricity of the onshore wind system potentially displaces electricity dispatched from combined-cycle gas turbine power plants.

EROI represents how much energy is obtained from a system compared to how much of that energy is required to create and implement the system. It is described by a unitless ratio of the energy returned to society to the energy required to make that energy source (Fthenakis Citation 2017 ).

Figure 5. Overall life cycle GHG emissions of the onshore wind farm in Aotearoa New Zealand, compared to previous studies in the literature.

Comparing lifecycle GHG emissions of onshore wind farms must be approached with some caution, because of different assumptions, methodological choices, modelled technologies, and site specifications. Moreover, the variability for onshore wind farms is significantly high. For instance, the GHG emissions for another wind farm deployed in Aotearoa New Zealand were estimated as 3 gCO 2eq /kWh (Rule et al. Citation 2009 ), much lower than this study’s wind farm case. According to the review of Mendecka and Lombardi ( Citation 2019 ), the overall median value for onshore wind farms is 9.7 gCO 2eq /kWh. The life cycle emissions result of this study is, therefore, aligned with the median carbon footprint reported in the literature.

The environmental payback time, in terms of GPBT, for the onshore wind farm is 3.1 years (avoiding the national grid) and 1.7 years (avoiding combined cycle gas turbines). The electricity grid in Aotearoa New Zealand is already of low carbon intensity, and its mean emission factor over the last 5 years is 103 gCO 2eq /kWh (Ministry for the Environment Citation 2022 ). Nevertheless, the onshore wind system emissions are 89.5% lower compared to the country’s grid. Deploying onshore wind plants in Aotearoa New Zealand therefore helps to reduce the emissions associated with the energy system as fossil fuels are phased out and electrification expands.

This study has some methodological limitations. First, it focuses only on the energy intensity and GHG emissions throughout the life cycle of the wind farm, even though there are other environmental impacts, such as ozone depletion, human toxicity, acidification, eutrophication, and resource depletion. Social, wildlife, or economic impacts were not considered. In addition, this LCA study estimates potential impacts, not measuring real impacts on the field. The results are limited by available inventory data, although data were selected representing the specific technology (4.3 MW permanent magnet direct drive turbine), and original data were utilised for construction and transportation phases.

Energy indicators

The findings indicate that the system is highly energy efficient. The onshore wind plant recoups the energy used in its production in 0.5 years, providing a quick net energy benefit. The low EPBT value indicates that the system enhances environmental benefits, as it generates much more energy than was consumed during its production. The EROI result is 66, which shows a high energy gain compared to the energy invested to manufacture the onshore wind plant. The EROI of onshore wind plants in Aotearoa New Zealand has been previously estimated, reaching up to 62.3, depending on the plant (Walmsley et al. Citation 2017 ). The findings show that onshore wind plants are very efficient providing significant net energy gain and contributing to long-term sustainability.

Contribution analysis

Figure 6. Life cycle GHG emissions and CED for the analysed wind plant in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Within the turbine’s manufacturing process, the usage of steel was identified as the main source responsible for nearly half of the emissions. Steel production is energy-intensive, coming from non-renewable heating sources, such as coal furnaces, and electricity mix. A fifth of the emissions associated with turbine manufacturing stems from the blades, primarily due to the production processes of carbon and glass fibres. Wind farms can enhance their environmental performance by minimising the steel requirement for towers through advancements in design and incorporating recycled secondary steel materials in manufacturing (Vélez-Henao and Vivanco Citation 2021 ). Additionally, the wind energy sector has been developing new technologies for blade production, including utilising organic materials (Li et al. Citation 2022 ). Support Information 3 presents a sensitivity analysis for the demand for steel, glass and carbon fibres, as well as for the required electricity for assembly.

Increasing the usage of renewable energy sources in the manufacturing phase can significantly enhance overall emissions reduction for future wind farm developments. Given that most components are manufactured in China, the country’s ongoing energy transition holds the potential to reduce the embodied emissions associated with wind turbines.

The GHG emissions credit for recycling metals in the end-of-life management phase of turbines and substations contributes significantly to the reduction of the overall life cycle emissions of the farm by 28% (−3.0 gCO 2eq /kWh). Other studies have highlighted that recycling materials at the wind farm end-of-life phase can yield GHG emissions savings ranging from 20 (Bonou et al. Citation 2016 ) to 40% (Atilgan and Azapagic Citation 2016b ). Recycling credits recognise that recycling materials avoid the extraction of raw materials and their associated environmental impacts. Incorporating recycling routes, therefore, increases the environmental performance of the wind farm.

The life cycle phases of a wind farm hold different levels of uncertainty. The manufacturing, installation and transportation phases hold more certainty, the former because of well-established manufacturing processes, and the latter because of the implementation of original data, which is discussed in the following subsection. However, uncertainties arise in the end-of-life phase. Wind farms have long lifetimes, and extensive experience with end-of-life management for wind farm components is still lacking. The effectiveness of recycling routes and their associated environmental impacts might change over time with more experience in managing the end-of-life of wind farms.

Construction and transportation phases

Figure 7. Life cycle GHG emissions for the analysed wind plant in Aotearoa New Zealand, comparing data for construction and transportation phases.

When employing original data sourced directly from the wind farm developer, the construction phase exhibits lower emissions, attributed to reduced concrete usage and optimised construction methods. On the other hand, the transportation phase demonstrates higher emissions, reflecting the inclusion of all contractors’ transportation activities. This highlights the significance of comprehensive data collection to assess environmental impacts accurately. The scenario reliant solely on literature values may underestimate transportation and overestimate construction emissions due to the variability in practices across projects.

LCA using original data for the installation and services of wind farms has also indicated that environmental impacts were largely associated with transportation, as in the Bonou et al. ( Citation 2016 ) study. Strategies for achieving environmental improvements for the transportation phase include the adoption of electrified vehicles, incorporation of renewable fuels, and optimisation of logistic processes. Optimising logistics can reduce travel and fuel consumption through route planning, load consolidation, and vehicle sharing.

Other LCA studies have reported a higher emission share for the installation phase attributed to the production of cement for the concrete foundation (Gomaa et al. Citation 2019 ). In this study, during the construction phase, cement, steel, and gravel production are the main contributors to GHG emissions. Strategies to enhance the environmental performance of the installation phase include increasing the utilisation of recycled crushed materials on roads, increasing the fuel efficiency of heavy machinery (Rajaei and Tinjum Citation 2013 ), and incorporating alternative cementitious materials.

Blade end-of-life management scenarios

Figure 8. Life cycle GHG emissions for the analysed wind plant in Aotearoa New Zealand, considering different end-of-life management strategy for the blades.

Although LCA studies for wind farms overlook the recycling of blades, this study results align with the LCA findings of Diez-Cañamero and Mendonza ( Citation 2023 ) specifically for end-of-life management of turbine blades, in which chemical recycling potentially generates higher carbon credits. However, there remains no consensus on the environmental impacts and benefits of chemical recycling, as other studies have yielded higher GHG emissions values due to increased energy consumption and potential sensitivity to thermal energy sources (Sproul et al. Citation 2023 ). Chemical recycling is currently in a laboratory demonstration phase, suggesting that its GHG emissions may change as the process transitions to larger-scale implementation.

In this study, the mechanical recycling process is inherently more energy-intensive compared to the other end-of-life management solutions. The environmental impact intensity of each end-of-life management route is notably sensitive to changes in the energy mix. Thus, shifting towards renewable electricity generation can significantly reduce the emissions associated with waste recovery methods such as mechanical recycling. Given that mechanical recycling is a more mature technology, it holds promise for effective end-of-life management for the post-consumer blades, moving away from conventional disposal in landfills.

Developing recycling routes aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of post-consumer blades at their end-of-life stage is therefore imperative. Feasible, large-scale recycling routes are required for turbine blades, aligning with the objectives of the electricity transition and the circular economy. As these technologies mature, become cost-competitive, and attain commercial availability, they hold the potential to enhance the environmental performances of wind farms.

Other options for mitigating the impacts at the end-of-life stage of turbine blades can involve exploring secondary uses for the blade, such as pedestrian bridges and transmission towers. However, they are less demanding applications not capable of addressing all the potential post-consumer blades (Yang et al. Citation 2023 ). Other end-of-life management options, such as incineration, pyrolysis, and co-generation in cement kilns, were not assessed in this study and could be subject to further investigation in subsequent research endeavours.

As Aotearoa New Zealand undergoes a profound shift towards low-carbon energy solutions, with the expansion of electrification and deployment of wind systems, it becomes increasingly important to adapt and update LCA for these systems to comprehensively evaluate their life cycle energy demand and GHG emissions. This study has shown that despite energy investments and GHG emissions in the production phase, the onshore wind plant offsets its emissions over its lifespan, making it a suitable option for the energy transition in Aotearoa New Zealand, and elsewhere. This underscores that onshore wind plants are aligned with the principles of sustainable development. Nevertheless, it remains crucial to continue implementing improvements aimed at limiting negative environmental impacts while maximising positive contributions throughout the supply chain of onshore wind plants.

Recycling post-consumer turbine blades is emerging as an alternative to address the challenge of blade waste, which is currently predominantly disposed of in landfills. Both mechanical and chemical recycling methods show potential environmental benefits, reducing the overall wind farm GHG emissions from 10.8 (landfill) to 10.3 and 9.7 gCO 2eq , respectively. However, it is crucial to note that these recycling technologies are not yet commercially feasible, and mechanical recycling presents the most mature option. As recycling processes continue to evolve, their potential environmental impacts and benefits are subject to change, particularly as they become more efficient and utilise renewable electricity sources in their operations. Therefore, ongoing research and development efforts are essential to analysing the potential benefits of recycling turbine blades and integrating them into LCA for onshore wind farms.

The prospects for further LCA studies for wind farms rely on accounting for ongoing changes in the energy supply, end-of-life management, and technology advances. As manufacturing countries undergo an energy transition and increasingly rely on renewable sources, understanding the implications of these shifts on the environmental footprints of wind turbines is crucial. As the wind energy sector gains more expertise in end-of-life management, adjusting LCA databases to accurately reflect these developments is required. Finally, because of the rapid advancements of technologies, regular updates to LCA studies are necessary to ensure they remain reflective of current practices and accurately inform decision-making processes.

Supplemental Material

The Doctoral Scholarship programme of Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington provided financial support to undertake the research. Meridian Energy Ltd. is acknowledged for providing valuable information and data pertaining to the construction and operation of their Harapaki Wind Farm.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

• Al-Behadili AH, El-Osta WN. 2015. Life cycle assessment of Dernah (Libya) wind farm. Renewable Energy . 83 :1227–1233. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.05.041.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Alsaleh A, Sattler M. 2019. Comprehensive life cycle assessment of large wind turbines in the US. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy . 21 ( 4 ):887–903. doi:10.1007/s10098-019-01678-0.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Atilgan B, Azapagic A. 2016a. Assessing the environmental sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey on a life cycle basis. Energies . 9 ( 1 ):31. doi:10.3390/en9010031.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Atilgan B, Azapagic A. 2016b. Renewable electricity in Turkey: life cycle environmental impacts. Renewable Energy . 89 :649–657. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.082.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Basosi R, Bonciani R, Frosali D, Manfrida G, Parisi ML, Sansone F. 2020. Life cycle analysis of a geothermal power plant: comparison of the environmental performance with other renewable energy systems. Sustainability . 12 ( 7 ):2786. doi:10.3390/su12072786.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Batters R. 2023. Harapaki wind farm development, Hawke’s Bay: July 2023 Report.   Google Scholar
• Bonou A, Laurent A, Olsen SI. 2016. Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application. Applied Energy . 180 :327–337. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.058.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Brussa G, Grosso M, Rigamonti L. 2023. Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind farm in Italy. Sustainable Production and Consumption . 39 :134–144. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2023.05.006.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Carrara S, Alves Dias P, Plazzotta B, Pavel C. 2020. Raw materials demand for wind and solar PV technologies in the transition towards a decarbonised energy system . Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. EUR 30095 EN. doi:10.2760/160859.   Google Scholar
• Cassoret B, Balavoine F, Roger D. 2023. Life Cycle Assessments of different electricity production scenarios in France with a variable proportion of nuclear energy. International Journal of Green Energy . 20 ( 6 ):571–581. doi:10.1080/15435075.2022.2075704.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Daaboul J, Moriarty P, Honnery D. 2023. Net green energy potential of solar photovoltaic and wind energy generation systems. Journal of Cleaner Production . 415 :137806. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137806.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Das U, Nandi C. 2022. Life cycle assessment on onshore wind farm: An evaluation of wind generators in India. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments . 53 :102647. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2022.102647.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Diez-Cañamero B, Mendonza J. 2023. Circular economy performance and carbon footprint of wind turbine blade waste management alternatives. Waste Management . 164 :94–105. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2023.03.041.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Elmariami A, El-Osta W, Nassar Y, Khalifa Y, Elfleet M. 2023. Life cycle assessment of 20 MW wind farm in Libya. Applied Solar Energy . 59 ( 1 ):64–78. doi:10.3103/S0003701X22601557.   Google Scholar
• Fonseca LFS, Carvalho M. 2022. Greenhouse gas and energy payback times for a wind turbine installed in the Brazilian Northeast. Frontiers in Sustainability . 3:1060130.   Google Scholar
• Fthenakis V. 2017. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaics. In: A. Reinders, P. Verlinden, W. Sark, A. Freundlich, editors. Photovoltaic solar energy supporting methods and tools . West Sussex: Wiley; p. 646–657.   Google Scholar
• Gaete-Morales C, Gallego-Schmid A, Stamford L, Azapagic A. 2018. Assessing the environmental sustainability of electricity generation in Chile. Science of the Total Environment . 636 :1155–1170. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.346.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Garrett P, Rønde K. 2013. Life cycle assessment of wind power: comprehensive results from a state-of-the-art approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment . 18 ( 1 ):37–48. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0445-4.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Gomaa MR, Rezk H, Mustafa RJ, Al-Dhaifallah M. 2019. Evaluating the environmental impacts and energy performance of a wind farm system utilizing the life-cycle assessment method: A practical case study. Energies . 12 ( 17 ):3263. doi:10.3390/en12173263.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• He G, Lin J, Sifuentes F, Liu X, Abhyankar N, Phadke A. 2020. U1 snRNP regulates cancer cell migration and invasion in vitro. Nature Communications . 11 ( 1 ):1–9. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jensen JP. 2019. Evaluating the environmental impacts of recycling wind turbines. Wind Energy . 22 ( 2 ):316–326. doi:10.1002/we.2287.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Johnson N, Bortolotti P, Dykes K, Barter G, Moriarty P, Carron S, Wendt F, Veers P, Paquette J, Kelly C, Ennis B. 2019. Investigation of innovative rotor concepts for the Big Adaptive Rotor Project. www.nrel.gov/publications .   Google Scholar
• Kadiyala A, Kommalapati R, Huque Z. 2017. Characterization of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from wind electricity generation systems. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering . 8 ( 1 ):55–64. doi:10.1007/s40095-016-0221-5.   Google Scholar
• Li C, Mogollón JM, Tukker A, Steubing B. 2022. Environmental impacts of global offshore wind energy development until 2040. Environmental Science & Technology . 56 :11567–11577. doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c02183.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Li Q, Duan H, Xie M, Kang P, Ma Y, Zhong R, Gao T, Zhong W, Wen B, Bai F, Vuppaladadiyam AK. 2021. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of a 40 MW wind farm with consideration of the infrastructure. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews . 138 :110499. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110499.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Mendecka B, Lombardi L. 2019. Life cycle environmental impacts of wind energy technologies: a review of simplified models and harmonization of the results. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews . 111 :462–480. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.019.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Meridian Energy. n.d. Harapaki wind project; [accessed January 15 2024]. https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/power-stations/wind/harapaki .   Google Scholar
• Minister of Climate Change. 2022. Te hau mārohi ki anamata: towards a productive, sustainable and inclusive economy.   Google Scholar
• Ministry for the Environment. 2022. Measuring emissions: a guide for organisations: 2022 detailed guide.   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment. 2022. Electricity statistics. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/ .   Google Scholar
• Moghadam FK, Nejad AR. 2020. Evaluation of PMSG-based drivetrain technologies for 10-MW floating offshore wind turbines: pros and cons in a life cycle perspective. Wind Energy . 23 ( 7 ):1542–1563. doi:10.1002/we.2499.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Nagle AJ, Delaney EL, Bank LC, Leahy PG. 2020. A comparative life cycle assessment between landfilling and co-processing of waste from decommissioned Irish wind turbine blades. Journal of Cleaner Production . 277 :123321. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123321.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Nassar YF, El-Khozondar HJ, El-Osta W, Mohammed S, Elnaggar M, Khaleel M, Ahmed A, Alsharif A. 2024. Carbon footprint and energy life cycle assessment of wind energy industry in Libya. Energy Conversion and Management . 300 :117846. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117846.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• New Zealand Government. 2019. Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0061/latest/LMS183736.html .   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Wind Energy Association. n.d. New Zealand’s wind farms; [accessed January 10 2024]. https://www.windenergy.org.nz/wind-energy/nz-onshore-wind-farms .   Google Scholar
• Oebels KB, Pacca S. 2013. Life cycle assessment of an onshore wind farm located at the northeastern coast of Brazil. Renewable Energy . 53 :60–70. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.10.026.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Oğuz E, Şentürk AE. 2019. Selection of the most sustainable renewable energy system for Bozcaada Island: wind vs. photovoltaic. Sustainability . 11 ( 15 ):4098. doi:10.3390/su11154098.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ozoemena M, Cheung WM, Hasan R. 2018. Comparative LCA of technology improvement opportunities for a 1.5-MW wind turbine in the context of an onshore wind farm. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy . 20 ( 1 ):173–190. doi:10.1007/s10098-017-1466-2.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ozsahin B, Elginoz N, Germirli Babuna F. 2022. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research . 29 ( 47 ):71000–71013. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-20783-0.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Pincelli IP, Brent AC, Hinkley JT, Sutherland R. 2024. Scaling up solar and wind electricity: a disruptive scenario for Aotearoa New Zealand. Royal Society of New Zealand (to be published).   Google Scholar
• Portugal-Pereira J, Köberle AC, Soria R, Lucena AF, Szklo A, Schaeffer R. 2016. Overlooked impacts of electricity expansion optimisation modelling: the life cycle side of the story. Energy . 115 :1424–1435. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.062.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Prabhu VS, Mukhopadhyay K. 2022. Assessment of wind energy in India at the national and sub-national level: attributional LCA exercise. International Journal of Green Energy . 19 ( 9 ):1023–1048. doi:10.1080/15435075.2021.1978447.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Rajaei M, Tinjum JM. 2013. Life cycle assessment of energy balance and emissions of a wind energy plant. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering . 31 :1663–1670. doi:10.1007/s10706-013-9637-3.   Google Scholar
• Rashedi A, Sridhar I, Tseng KJ. 2013. Life cycle assessment of 50MW wind firms and strategies for impact reduction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews . 21 :89–101. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.045.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Reimer MV, Schenk-Mathes HY, Hoffman MF, Elwert T. 2018. Recycling decisions in 2020, 2030, and 2040—when can substantial NdFeB extraction be expected in the EU? Metals . 8 :867. doi:10.3390/met8110867.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Rule BM, Worth ZJ, Boyle CA. 2009. Comparison of life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation technologies in New Zealand. Environmental Science & Technology . 43 ( 16 ):6406–6413. doi:10.1021/es900125e.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Schreiber A, Marx J, Zapp P. 2019. Comparative life cycle assessment of electricity generation by different wind turbine types. Journal of Cleaner Production . 233 :561–572. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.058.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Şentürk AE, Oğuz E, Çiçek DD. 2021. Comparison of renewables (onshore wind, offshore wind, conventional PV) for Bozcaada Island in Turkey. Developments in Maritime Technology and Engineering – Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering, MARTECH 2020 . 2 ( Martech 2020 ):653–663. doi:10.1201/9781003216599-69.   Google Scholar
• Sorte S, Martins N, Oliveira MSA, Vela GL, Relvas C. 2023. Unlocking the potential of wind turbine blade recycling: assessing techniques and metrics for sustainability. Energies . 16 :7624. doi:10.3390/en16227624.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Sproul E, Williams M, Rencheck ML, Korey M, Ennis BL. 2023. Life cycle assessment of wind turbine blade recycling approaches in the United States. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering . 1293 :012027. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1293/1/012027.   Google Scholar
• Steubing B, de Koning D, Haas A, Mutel CL. 2020. The activity browser — an open source LCA software building on top of the brightway framework. Software Impacts . 3 :100012. doi:10.1016/j.simpa.2019.100012.   Google Scholar
• Tahtah A, Raouti D, Meziane R. 2022. Lecture notes in networks and systems. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Renewable Energetic Systems . 361 :212–219. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-92038-8_21.   Google Scholar
• Tahtah A, Raouti D, Meziane R. 2023. Economic and ecological evaluation and optimization of the life cycle of a wind farm. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology . 20 ( 9 ):9837–9852. doi:10.1007/s13762-023-04784-1.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Thopil GA. 2021. The evolution of electrification in South Africa and its energy-environmental impact. In: Asif M, editor. Energy and environmental security in developing countries . Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; p. 253–278. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63654-8_10.   Google Scholar
• Vélez-Henao JA, Vivanco DF. 2021. Hybrid life cycle assessment of an onshore wind farm including direct and indirect services: a case study in Guajira, Colombia. Journal of Environmental Management . 284 :112058. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112058.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Verma S, Paul AR, Haque N. 2022. Selected environmental impact indicators assessment of wind energy in India using a life cycle assessment. Energies . 15 ( 11 ):3944. doi:10.3390/en15113944.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Walmsley TG, Walmsley MRW, Atkins MJ. 2017. Energy return on energy and carbon investment of wind energy farms: a case study of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production . 167 :885–895. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.040.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Xu L, Pang M, Zhang L, Poganietz WR, Marathe SD. 2018. Life cycle assessment of onshore wind power systems in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling . 132 :361–368. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.014.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Yang J, Meng F, Zhang L, McKechnie J, Chang Y, Ma B, Hao Y, Li X, Pender K, Yang L, et al. 2023. Solutions for recycling emerging wind turbine blade waste in China are not yet effective. Communications Earth & Environment . 4 :466. doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01104-w.   Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Liu X, Zhao D, Post S, Chen J. 2023. Overview of the development and application of wind energy in New Zealand. Energy and Built Environment . 4 ( 6 ):725–742. doi:10.1016/j.enbenv.2022.06.009.   Google Scholar
• Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China

• August 2020
• Sustainability 12(17):6894

• East China University of Science and Technology

• Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• SUSTAIN DEV

• Rudi A. Hakvoort
• Zofia Lukszo

• A. Talayero

• Miltiadis Chalikias

• Paul Norman
• RENEW SUST ENERG REV

• Xiaoqing Ren

• COMPUT CHEM ENG
• Tianxiao Li

• Raik Becker

• Juchuan Dai

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up