Determination of Thresholds of Visual Impact: The Case of Wind Turbines
Abstract
Visual impact assessment using GIS (geographical information system) based viewshed mapping is commonly employed on major projects. However, there is typically little analysis of the possible range of impact based on the size of the introduced landscape element, its contrast with the surroundings, or the effect of typical levels of atmospheric scattering on the perceived contrast. A landscape element which is increasingly the subject of aesthetic scrutiny and visual analysis is the wind-energy turbine or—when installed in large numbers—the wind farm. I take the wind turbine as my subject partly because of its recent significance and also because, as a moving element, it is a special case. I report an Internet-based experiment to determine the relative perceived size of a turbine, image analysis to determine its typical contrast level, and the effect of atmospheric scattering on this contrast. With these three factors and equations derived in an earlier study, estimates are made for the probability of turbine detection, recognition, and visual impact at distances up to 30 km.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
According to Bishop (2002), in areas with transparent skies, visibility modelling out to 20 km-30 km is justified.
“However, according to Bishop (2002) in areas with transparent skies, visibility modelling out to 20 km-30 km is justified.”
From A Network Approach to Link Visibility and Urban Activity Location (2018) · cites this paper as Bishop 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Network Approach to Link Visibility and Urban Activity Location
Natapov, A., Czamanski, D., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2018) · Networks and Spatial Economics · doi:10.1007/s11067-018-9411-4 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“However, according to Bishop (2002) in areas with transparent skies, visibility modelling out to 20 km–30 km is justified.”
Background
- Authors
- Bishop, I. D.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Bishop, Ian D
- ORCID
- Bishop, Ian D
- Venue
- Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 707-718
- ISSN
- 0265-8135 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-3417
- OpenAlex
- W1970593608
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 7.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environment and Planning B Planning and Design (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
- Keywords
- wind turbines, visual impact assessment, size perception, visual contrast, atmospheric scattering, wind farms, landscape aesthetics, image analysis, online experiments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
