Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

A case study on visual impact assessment for wind

energy development

Robert C. Corry

To cite this article: Robert C. Corry (2011) A case study on visual impact assessment for wind
energy development, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29:4, 303-315

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155111X12959673796047

Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 861

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(4), December 2011, pages 303–315
DOI: 10.3152/146155111X12959673796047; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/iapa

A case study on visual impact assessment

for wind energy development

Robert C Corry

Wind energy development is expanding. Preparations for wind farms include environmental impact
assessments, specifically with visual impact assessments (VIAs). Often using simulated photographs,
VIAs depict the post-development landscape appearance with new wind energy structures. This
Ontario case study compares simulated photographs submitted as part of a VIA with post-development
conditions. Simulations were judged for accuracy in turbine number, height, diameter, and location,
and adequacy in representation of built conditions. Simulations were partially representative of post-
development conditions, yet commonly under-represented turbine number and size in different
locations than they were built. Simulation frames were too narrow to adequately represent human
vision and simulations under-estimated how many wind turbines were visible from a single landscape
position. Outcomes suggest that visual simulations can lack accuracy or representativeness, misleading
the public. Adopting province-wide VIA criteria and increasing adherence to visual simulation
guidance may be necessary to improve the accuracy and representativeness of VIA content.

Keywords: visual simulation, environmental screening, wind turbines, transmission lines, green
energy, Ontario, Canada

R ENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

IS INCREASING, driven by rising energy
costs, concerns about greenhouse gas emis-
sions, government support (e.g., Ontario, Canada’s
Green Energy and Green Economy Act; Bill 150,
Statute of Ontario, 2009 C.12), and conventional en-
ergy exploration consequences like the Deepwater
Horizon drilling accident and subsequent oil leak in-
to the Gulf of Mexico, USA (April 2010). Land-
based renewable energy development (compared to
off-shore) has commonly generated controversy
around the changing appearance of the landscape
(Krohn and Damborg, 1999) and aesthetic responses
remain important to the public (Klick and Smith,
2010). Yet land-based wind energy production has
advantages for transmission of electricity through
Robert C Corry is Associate Professor, Landscape Architecture,
at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G
2W1; Email: rcorry@uoguelph.ca; Tel: +1 519 824 4120 ext.
58034.
For acknowledgements see page 314.
established electricity grids to locations of greatest
demand (Lewis, 2008).
The changing appearance of the landscape is of
concern to stakeholders who seek to anticipate the
direction and magnitude of landscape change (Klick
and Smith, 2010). Visual impact assessment is usu-
ally (not always) a requirement for permitting, and
documentation is submitted as part of development
applications (Gipe, 2002; County of Bruce Planning
& Economic Development Department, 2005;
Taylor et al, 2006). The quality of visual assess-
ments, therefore, should be strictly maintained in or-
der that the pre-development predictions reliably,
accurately, and reasonably completely depict the
nature and extent of landscape change resulting from
renewable energy development (Smardon and Karp,
1993; Sheppard, 1989).
Guidance documents for wind energy visual as-
sessment vary in terms of expectations and regulato-
ry approach (Pasqualetti et al, 2002; Horner +
Maclennan and Envision, 2005; University of
Newcastle, 2002). Photographic simulations are the
most common way of illustrating likely landscape

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011 1461-5517/11/040303-13 US$12.00  IAIA 2011 303
A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
change — more common than models and three-
dimensional virtual depictions. Suggestions for how
photographic simulations are constructed, presented,
and viewed are intended to help standardize ap-
proaches and yield highly representative simulations
(Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005;
University of Newcastle, 2002; Sheppard, 1989), yet
in many cases the simulations submitted for permit-
ting and development approval are not methodically
evaluated against the post-development reality (see
Wood, 2000, as a rare exception).
Principles for visual simulation preparation and
presentation include the representativeness and accu-
racy of the visual simulation (Sheppard, 1989).
Sheppard (1989) defines the representativeness prin-
ciple as, ‘a set of simulations is representative if it
shows important views of the project and shows the
project in typical views and conditions’ (p. 65). The
principle of accuracy (Sheppard, 1989) is sometimes
considered the truthfulness or honesty of a simulated
view and is stated as, ‘a fully accurate simulation
shows a view of the project that is not significantly
different in appearance from the real view when seen
from the same viewpoint’ (p. 76). Accuracy is com-
plicated by the nature of the subject matter shown
(objects or elements of landscape change) and the
elements within the picture image (i.e., the visual
setting). Sheppard notes that, ‘A simulation may
omit parts of the project or scene that would, in real
life, be seen’ or that occluding or mitigating objects
such as trees may be simulated but not actually
present (p. 76).
This paper reports on a single case study where
simulations (in the ‘environmental screening report’
part of a visual impact assessment) have been com-
pared to the post-development landscape and as-
sessed qualitatively and quantitatively for accuracy
and representativeness of the nature and extent of
landscape change. Note that this study does not iden-
tify the location, municipal authority, developer, or
sub-contractors to the developer: the intent is limited
to appraising how an example visual impact assess-
ment compares to the post-development conditions
and commenting on the accuracy and representa-
tiveness by comparing simulations to the built pro-
ject as a way to inform future visual assessments and
preparation of guiding documents.
Ontario case study
Renewable energy development in Ontario is grow-
ing rapidly (about 200 megawatts per year since
2003) (Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure,
2010, mostly in the higher electricity demand areas of
southern Ontario. Wind energy development for a
rural southern Ontario municipality was preceded by
preparatory materials including environmental as-
sessments submitted by the commercial energy de-
veloper. These assessments included analysis of the
likely visual impacts of the development (The
304
Landscape Institute: Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment, 2002; Committee on
Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects —
National Research Council, 2007). Under recent sus-
tainable energy legislation in Ontario (Bill 150,
2009) sustainable energy developers (e.g., solar,
wind, biomass) are not required to produce visual
impact assessments, and no guidance is given. Court
challenges to the ‘Green Energy Act’ (Bill 150,
2009) are demonstrating that concern remains over
visual and other impacts of large wind energy devel-
opment in rural Ontario so the statute may be subject
to revision.
This paper is a case study of the visual impact
analysis contained in preparatory materials for a sin-
gle development of 45 wind turbines (2004–2006) as
compared to the post-development conditions of the
wind energy landscape. The development occurred
in two phases and this study includes only the first: a
second phase of 85 additional turbines used modi-
fied visual simulations that are included here for
illustration purposes only. The setting is open
agricultural land with extensive farms, dispersed
farmsteads, and rural housing. The land is substan-
tially flat and visibility of tall structures (e.g., tele-
communications towers) can be several kilometres
in extent.
For comparison purposes environmental screening
reports for other wind farm developments in Ontario
were reviewed (e.g., Manitoulin Island, Greenwich
Lake, Coldwell, Grand Valley, Harrow). There is no
standard accepted methodology for preparing visual
assessments, not all reports included photographic
material, and details for photographic locations and
camera focal length were highly variable. For the
Manitoulin Island project the consultant reported
that, ‘there are no regulations or policies regarding
the visual impacts of wind turbines in Ontario’ and
provided no images of visual impact (Dillon
Consulting Limited, 2009: 124). The case presented
here is similar to others in Ontario.
This case study is divided into descriptions of the
accuracy of components of the visual impact analy-
sis and representativeness of simulations compared
to the post-development condition and landscape
experience. Assessments of accuracy are provided
for the location, height and diameter, number, and
ancillary infrastructure associated with wind energy
turbines. Graphic illustrations are used to demon-
strate the accuracy of the visual impact assessments.
Methods
Procurement of visual simulations
Visual simulations were prepared by the developer’s
sub-consultant, a multi-disciplinary practice includ-
ing architecture, landscape architecture, and engi-
neering, and the best-available representations were
used for comparison purposes. The administrative
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
 A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
office of the municipality was visited to view the
environmental screening report (ESR) — a printed
document submitted by the developer — and the de-
veloper’s world-wide web site was scoured for doc-
umentation, preferably in digital format. While the
ESR for the second phase of development was avail-
able on-line (it has since been removed), the ESR
for the first 45 turbines was not available on-line.
A municipal officer was contacted to see if an elec-
tronic version had been submitted and was available,
but only the print copy was available. The best-
quality printed simulations were scanned directly
from the ESR (Phase One) that was provided to
municipality.
In the ESR the developer submitted simulated
photographs from six ‘vantage points’, all from pub-
licly accessible roadsides. Hard-copies of the simu-
lated photographs were scanned at high resolution
(600 dots-per-inch) in a flatbed scanner and convert-
ed to digital files (the basis for Figure 1). Simula-
tions were colour-adjusted only for increasing clarity
of the scanned images (permissible legibility
improvements in best practice documents, see
Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005), and no
other characteristic or attribute of the simulations
was changed. Given the nature of print media and
scanning of print documentation it is likely that the
simulations have been slightly distorted in the con-
version of hard-copy to digital file. The computer
screen image of the scanned photographs was visually
compared to the original paper copy to qualitatively
assess distortion; any change appears inconsequential
to the attributes assessed in this report.
Overlay of as-built conditions
The rural municipality was visited and each vantage
point used to create simulations was identified
(using maps from the developer’s ESR). At each
vantage point several high-resolution digital photo-
graphs were taken of the as-built conditions. Photos
were taken with a digital camera (23 May 2008)
with a 35mm lens to approximate the date, frame
width, and vantage point position and direction of
the simulations. Photos were opened in software, re-
viewed, and compared to simulations for the degree
of similarity of location and focal point. Best matches
were chosen for further comparison.
Digital overlays were created by making the simu-
lations a background layer and putting the as-built
photos on top of simulations. Horizontal and vertical
alignment was corrected with software so that horizon
lines and features such as buildings and vegetation
were matched. In some cases foreground features
like fencelines, powerlines, or road verges were not
identically matched (and not manipulated to match
in order to maintain scale and proportion — and
avoid stretching — of the digital photographs). To
maintain consistency with the simulations, middle-
ground and background elements (usually trees)
were matched for location and height – ensuring no
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
difference in vertical or horizontal scale. All as-built
photos were clipped to the width of the simulations
based on horizon-line objects (keeping photo extents
consistent with the simulations).
Several comparisons were made using digital
photo overlays and photographic assessment for
each vantage point simulation and the as-built photo-
graphs. The number of wind turbines in the field-of-
view were counted for both simulations and as-built
conditions. The height and rotor diameter of wind
turbines were compared between simulations and
built conditions. The location of simulated and built
wind turbines were compared (photographically and
using construction document co-ordinates). Finally,
the ancillary structures associated with wind energy,
as represented in as-built conditions photographed at
the vantage points, were assessed.
Assessment of simulation accuracy
The first objective was to learn if the simulations ac-
curately portrayed the as-built conditions. Accuracy
is assessed based on comparisons of as-built condi-
tions of turbines in the landscape compared to visual
simulations provided by the project development
team. Here ‘accuracy’ refers to a near-complete
overlap of position between proposed locations
(from simulations and planned co-ordinates) and as-
built locations (from field photographs and built co-
ordinates), sensu Sheppard’s (1989) definition (see
the start of the paper). Accuracy is quantified where
possible, and qualitatively assessed where photo-
based measurement (like depth and position) is
complicated. Accuracy is judged on attributes of po-
sition, height, and diameter, and number of wind
turbines in simulations and as-built conditions.
Number of wind turbines For the number of wind
turbines, in-field counts were used and compared
with counts from as-built photographs. At each
vantage point the numbers of turbines visible were
counted and recorded as visible at the nacelle, to the
blades at the height of rotation, and as a sum of both.
This count focused on the frame limits of a digital
simulation. In digital overlays the simulations and
as-built photos were reviewed at the same pixel
resolution and counts of wind turbines in each layer
were made.
Height and diameter of wind turbines The height
and diameter of wind turbines in the photos were
complicated by distance from viewer (the problem
of a shrinking perspective), camera focal length (not
reported and unknown for simulations), and changes
in rotor angle to viewer between simulations and as-
built photos. Quantifying height and diameter was
difficult because comparing a wind turbine simulat-
ed for a particular location yet built at a different
location made such comparison questionable. Quali-
tative assessment and visualization through photo
comparison better represented height/diameter fit.
305
A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development

Location of wind turbines The location of wind
turbines changed from proposal stage to built condi-
tions. The locations of turbines in the proposal were
transcribed from the ESR and built location co-
ordinates were provided by the wind energy devel-
oper to the municipal office. Changes between pro-
posed and as-built locations were precisely
quantified as measured shifts in east–west or north–
south directions. Challenges in quantifying location
in photos are similar to height and diameter meas-
urement. While locations obviously differ in simula-
tions and as-built photographs, it is difficult to
discern which (or if a) built turbine was shown in a
simulation photo (i.e., the simulation intent; the ESR
did not specify if simulated turbines were located at
proposed co-ordinates). It would be questionable to
try to quantify measured changes in location for a
turbine shown in both photographs. Like for height
and diameter, photo comparison was chosen to rep-
resent the fit between wind turbines as-built with
those simulated at vantage points.
Ancillary attributes As-built photos showed some
changes in attributes other than wind turbines. In
photographic overlays the images are compared for
ancillary attributes like access roads, powerlines, or
power substations. The comparison is visual only,
with ancillary attributes highlighted for selected
vantage points.
In panoramic photos the vantage point simulation
frame extent was gauged by comparing the simula-
tion with the panorama and matching horizon-line
points or objects (a box was illustrated on the photo to
show the simulation frame). The number of turbines
both within this frame and outside it were counted.
To assess the adequacy of visual simulations, typ-
ical human field-of-vision is compared to the view
frame of visual simulations to gauge how well the
simulations match human experience in a static
landscape view. If human field-of-vision is more ex-
pansive than the view frame of visual simulations,
panoramic as-built photos are used to count the
number of turbines within the width of human field-
of-vision. No assessment of height or locational ac-
curacy is made using the merged panorama photos,
but numbers of turbines partially or fully visible can
be counted from as-built high-resolution panoramic
photos.
Results
Accuracy: wind turbine number
The numbers of wind turbines are shown in Table 1.
Each vantage point is assessed for numbers of tur-
bines visible to different heights (at the nacelle or
generator housing, or to the tips of the blades) in the

Assessment of simulation representativeness Table 1. Accuracy of wind turbine numbers through

comparisons of visual simulations and as-built
Representativeness of simulations was assessed conditions
by comparing as-built conditions from the same
viewpoints as the vantage point locations using Basis of Visible turbines Totals
on-ground experience and photography with litera- comparison
ture on dimensions of human field-of-vision. The in- To nacelle To tips of
tent was to appraise how well the simulations height blade
represent the on-ground experience of the turbine Vantage point 1
development. The methodological approach follows Simulation 1 1 2
As-built 0 1 1
that of Sheppard (1989) for post-construction ap- Accuracy +1 = +1
praisal of simulations with a notable difference (a Vantage point 2
wider field-of-view; documented in the section on Simulation 5 0 5
‘Representativeness of as-built conditions’ below). As-built 13 3 16
Accuracy -8 -3 -11
As-built photography from the six vantage points
demonstrated that more turbines are visible than Vantage point 3
Simulation 7 0 7
were shown in a narrow frame of a simulation. To As-built 11 1 12
assess the adequacy of simulations as representa- Accuracy -4 -1 -5
tions of as-built conditions two vantage points were Vantage point 4
arbitrarily selected for further analysis. On 26 July Simulation 9 0 9
2008, additional as-built photos were taken with a As-built 10 1 11
Accuracy -1 -1 -2
digital camera for vantage points 3 and 4. The photo-
Vantage point 5
graphs were merged using software to create a 360- Simulation 1 0 1
degree visual field panoramic photo, with the As-built 1 0 1
horizon line approximating the mid-point of the ver- Accuracy = = =
tical view field. Merging photographs yields a con- Vantage point 6
cave horizon line, so the merged panoramic photo Simulation 1 2 3
As-built 2 1 3
was adjusted in software to make the horizon line Accuracy -1 +1 =
approximately level. The adjustments alter the verti-
Cumulative -13 -4 -17
cal profile of wind turbines but have no effect on the summary
number of turbines.

306 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011

 A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development

simulation frame view. Differences in turbine num- Table 2. Differences in proposed and built locations for wind
energy turbines. Easting and northing values
ber from simulation to as-built condition is derived (metres, from Universal Transverse Mercator co-
as a plus/minus ratio (showing either an over- or an ordinate projection system) were used to calculate
under-estimate of visible turbines, respectively). change. Change is shown as absolute values
The vantage point #1 simulation over-estimates
number of turbines. For vantage points #5 and 6 the Turbine no. Change easting Change northing
simulations approximately matched the as-built
numbers of turbines. Under-estimates characterize 1 11 18
comparisons for vantage points #2, 3, and 4 (see 2 10 16
3 9 14
Table 1). 4 7 13
5 0 0
Accuracy: location of wind turbines 6 0 0
7 6 31
8 29 24
Location accuracy is quantified from the proposed 9 2 1
and as-built co-ordinates for turbines. Table 2 shows 10 124 39
the arithmetic differences of proposed and built tur- 11 2 5
12 53 60
bine locations. Change is quantified in east–west and 13 1 0
north–south directions using absolute values (that is, 14 33 40
the direction of either east or west is not considered 15 0 1
16 2 0
critical, but rather how many metres of change 17 0 0
occurred). 18 0 0
The proposed location co-ordinates (metres, in 19 1 1
20 0 2
Universal Transverse Mercator projection) were re- 21 1 1
ported as integers, while built co-ordinates were 22 1 2
reported to three decimal places. The minimum 23 0 0
change reported by the developer from proposal to 24 0 0
25 0 0
built conditions is 0.01 and 0.03 metres in north– 26 39 32
south and east–west directions, respectively, and 27 17 16
within reason should be considered to be zero. The 28 28 15
29 5 5
maximum change is 123.62 and 76.16 metres (N–S 30 24 76
and E–W), with an average change of 13.32 and 31 6 10
14.00 metres. Because the proposed locations were 32 1 1
33 3 1
integer values, all change values are rounded to the 34 0 0
nearest metre. 35 0 0
Photographic comparisons appear to show more 36 Not built Not built
37 0 0
change in location than the numeric values in Table 38 Not built Not built
2 imply. Photographic comparisons are shown in 39 Not built Not built
Figure 1. These photos are used to qualitatively 40 Not built Not built
compare the location, but begin to hint at differences 41 Not built Not built
42 Not built Not built
in height and rotor diameter dimensions. A notable 43 1 0
challenge in the comparisons (Figure 1) is that it is 44 3 3
difficult to know which built turbines have moved 45 62 51
46 23 18
from planned locations. Horizontal lead-lines are 47 28 34
used to give the best approximation of ‘matched’ 48 21 47
turbines between simulations and as-built photos. 49 32 39
50 2 1
This may introduce some error as turbines that have
changed location were generally assumed to have Mean change (13.321, 13.996)
done so approximately laterally to the viewpoint ax- Maximum change (123.622, 76.162)
is; that is, that turbines moved visibly left or right in Minimum change (0.014, 0.027)
the frame, not strictly closer to or farther from the
viewer in a straight line. This assumption allowed
for more direct comparisons of heights and rotor dia-
meters, is plausible for the vantage point photos, and change, i.e., built precisely where planned), the sim-
is not challenged by the simulations. ulations appear to show only one turbine that is built
Photograph overlay figures should be compared where planned (Figure 1A). Using the turbine towers
with the tables of turbine location differences (Table as relative measures (they are 80 metres tall), many
2). It is understandable that location adjustments of the turbine locations appear to have changed by
would be required in the field during construction as more than the average change distance of 14 metres.
indicated by co-ordinates (Table 2). While the The turbines in Figure 1E and 1I appear to be more
changes in location of turbines in tables is common- than the maximum change distance listed in Table 2
ly quite small (many distance values are zero metres as 124 metres (approximately 11/2 tower heights). In

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011 307

A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
fact it is difficult to identify an alternative built tur-
bine in the field that helps to explain the discrepancy,
suggesting that either the turbines shown in simu-
lations do not correspond with planned locations or
that as-built location co-ordinates are incorrect.
Accuracy: height and diameter of wind turbines
As suggested in the assessment of location accuracy,
photographic overlays provided qualitative evidence
as to the accuracy of height of wind turbine towers
and rotor diameter in simulations. In most cases the
rotor diameter could be observed by the heights of
turbine blade tips and distance to nacelle for turbines
of similar nacelle heights. Figure 1 (right column)
show the comparison for turbine heights and rotor
diameters.
For vantage points #1 and 3 the simulations close-
ly match built conditions for turbine heights of
nacelle and blades at top of rotation (Figure 1B and
1F). Rotor diameter can be difficult to compare for
Figure 1. Simulation overlays showing as-built conditions (grey tone) and simulated turbines (white) for six vantage points.
Lead-lines help to compare turbine locations (left column) and heights (right column) (continued
308
turbines turned in different directions in photo-
graphs, yet blade length accuracy provides a good
surrogate. Vantage point #6 simulations both over-
and under-estimated turbine height for a net neutral
effect (Figure 1L). Vantage points #2, 4, and 5
consistently show simulated turbines slightly shorter
than in the as-built conditions (Figure 1D, 1H, 1J).
While the distance from viewer to object and camera
focal length certainly affect the appearance of the
object’s height, for half of the simulations the tur-
bines’ heights are under-represented, with only one
case of over-estimation (Figure 1L) and one case of
a turbine simulated that could not be matched with
an as-built turbine (Figure 1D). To assess camera
focal length effects other vertical elements in the
photographs (e.g., utility poles, trees) were com-
pared across the depth-of-field and close matches or
only minor differences were observed. When the
simulations err for illustrating turbine height, they
err most consistently by showing turbines that are
shorter than they are built.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
 A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
Figure 1 (continued)
Accuracy: ancillary attributes
Simulations illustrate wind energy development
structures with a focus on wind turbines. However,
other elements are added to the landscape to sup-
port wind energy processing and delivery, including
roadways and access lanes, electricity regulation
structures, and transmission lines and poles. In field
visits some marked changes were noted between
the simulated landscape view and the built view
with respect to these ancillary attributes. For most
vantage points (four of the six), the changes were
not easily visible, but in two vantage points changes
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
were noticeable and in one the changes were sub-
stantial (Figure 2). The changes most vividly show
access roads and powerlines. The vantage points
did not allow for opportunities to view bases of
turbine towers where additional ancillary structures
exist.
Representativeness of as-built conditions
The adequacy of simulations compared to as-built
conditions is assessed by comparing human field-of-
vision and 360-degree fields-of-view to the simula-
tion frames (Horner + Maclennan and Envision,
309
A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
Figure 2. Ancillary attributes (grey tone) that were not simulated for vantage point #4
2005). This approximates the experience of someone
embedded in the landscape with a fixed or sweep-
ing view (e.g., anyone whose vision is not fixed by
a windshield frame). The figures compare the por-
tion of visibility of the simulation frame to human
binocular vision and the 360-degree landscape
view, and count the number of turbines visible
within the simulation frame compared to the other
ways of viewing. Because additional turbines were
under construction at the time of photography, a
map figure from developer documentation was used
to distinguish between the locations of first and
second construction phase turbines in the photo-
graphs and limit the comparison to only the first
phase (clear geographic zones for first- and second-
phase development helped eliminate any errors or
confusion).
Field-of-vision of a ‘typical’ human (binocular
vision) ranges from 120 degrees to 200 degrees
(Smardon and Karp, 1993; Horner + Maclennan and
Envision, 2005), yet in that breadth of vision only a
very limited six to ten degrees is in a person’s focus
(Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005). For con-
sideration of typical views Sheppard (1989) notes
that human binocular sight is almost 180 degrees in
width, but focal vision is usually limited to the cen-
tral 50 degrees of a field-of-view (his recommenda-
tion for simulations is 40–45 degrees, p. 127). The
narrowest values (6 to 50 degrees) for field-of-view
implies fixed eyes and immobile heads (i.e., looking
at a landscape but without moving either eyes or
head). In this setting the 80 metre towers with 40
metre blades makes turbines highly visible beyond
the landscape’s existing high points (tops of trees or
tower silos, both commonly < 20 metres tall).
310
Because field work in this study demonstrated the
vividness of the turbines against the sky and keeping
a fixed, directed view is unlikely within a surround-
ing envelope of turbines, the lower values for field-
of-view were considered to be narrow and unlikely
in experience. Instead a field-of-vision of 120 de-
grees was applied (10 degrees less than suggested by
Smardon and Karp, 1993, but 70 degrees more than
suggested by Sheppard, 1989) and diagrammed on
the panoramic photos (Figure 3), compared to the
simulation frame, with turbine numbers counted
across different extents of visibility and reported in
Table 3.
For both vantage points (Figure 3), the simula-
tion frame was substantially narrower than field-of-
vision values. The conservative field-of-vision val-
ue of 120 degrees was applied, yet simulation
frames were measured to be 49 and 48 degrees (for
vantage points #3 and 4, respectively) or approxi-
mately 41% of typical binocular vision. Best man-
agement practices suggest that narrow frames can
be adequate: ‘For some views, it may be possible
to incorporate the desired field of view within a
single frame (under 39 degrees with a 50 mm lens);
but usually this will require a panorama’ (p. 63,
Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005). Because
of the differences between simulation frame width
and field-of-vision width, turbines shown in the
simulation are fewer than would be seen in the
as-built situation by a typical person and many
fewer than a person standing in the landscape and
turning their head. The discrepancy between turbine
visibility in the simulation frame, human field-of-
vision frame, and 360-degree view is reported in
Table 3.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
 A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development

Figure 3. Comparison of simulation frame width with panoramic and 120-degree fields-of-vision
for two vantage points
(‘*’ symbols identify turbines)

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011 311

A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
Table 3. Comparison of Phase One turbine numbers in
simulations, field-of-vision, and panoramic views for
two vantage points. (Parenthetic values show
magnitude of difference from the simulations)
Simulation Field-of-vision 360-degree
frame frame view
Vantage point 12 19 26
#3 (58% more) (117% more)
Vantage point 11 28 43
#4 (155% more) (291% more)
Note: The figures in this table include only the Phase One
turbines (Phase Two turbines increase the above
values)
Discussion and conclusions
Environmental screening reports (by any name) are
intended to demonstrate the likely visual effect of
development (Smardon and Karp, 1993; University
of Newcastle, 2002) and inform decision-making by
residents and local authorities. It is important, there-
fore, that the information is adequate and accurate.
Visual simulation of new development has been a
way to understand landscape change and a recom-
mended part of impact assessment for years (Smardon
and Karp, 1993; USDA Forest Service, 1995;
Sheppard, 1989; The Landscape Institute: Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002).
Simulations of wind energy development are a lo-
gical part of any impact assessment and have been
advocated for jurisdictions in Ontario (Taylor et al,
2006) yet not adopted on a provincial basis. A
commercial software for wind energy planning,
‘WindPro’, includes a highly specific visual simula-
tion module, demonstrating the recognized im-
portance and value of visual impact assessment
for wind energy development (Windpro, 2008).
Other reports have consistently and thoroughly
described the importance of visual impact assess-
ment for wind energy development (Gipe, 2002;
Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005; University
of Newcastle, 2002; Gipe, 2003). It is logical and
consistent that wind energy development in rural
Ontario includes visual simulations as part of
environmental screening reports.
This case study examined the accuracy and ade-
quacy of visual simulations provided for 45 turbines
in a rural wind energy development project. The
second phase of the project is now complete and has
effected more visual landscape change, even for van-
tage points reported on here (i.e., changes since mid-
2008). The description of the visual impact and the
comparison to simulations is therefore a conservative
estimate to the new rural landscape experience.
Results showed a number of discrepancies be-
tween the visual simulations in the environmental
screening report and the as-built situation. Location-
al information was drawn from the environmental
screening report and compared to built data provided
by the developer. Turbine numbers were both
312
over-estimated and under-estimated in visual simula-
tions, but on the whole the number of turbines visi-
ble in the simulations was an under-estimate of the
as-built conditions. In six simulated vantage points a
cumulative under-estimate of 13 turbines visible to
the generator/nacelle was observed, and four more
were visible to the tips of blades (an average 2.8 ad-
ditional turbines at each vantage point). Best prac-
tices (for Scotland) state that ‘it should be ensured
that all the wind turbines that could potentially be
seen from a viewpoint should be shown within the
image’ (Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005:
92–93).
For turbine location accuracy, the planned co-
ordinates reasonably approximate the built co-
ordinates provided by the developer with many cases
implying nearly complete locational accuracy (aver-
age of 14 metres different; maximum of 123 metres).
Yet when comparing the as-built photos to the visual
simulations, the locational differences appeared to
be greater than the co-ordinates indicated. For many
photographic comparisons, the illustrated change in
location looked much more than the average change
(and sometimes even more than the maximum
change) indicated by the table of planned and built
co-ordinates (Table 2). While it is challenging to
‘match’ or ‘pair’ the simulated turbine with a built
turbine, the photographic comparison does not illus-
trate locational accuracy on the order of the planned
and built co-ordinates reported. For people who
relied upon simulations to approximate turbine loca-
tions (and hence plan visual screening), the changes
could make screening ineffective.
Heights and rotor diameters of wind turbines in
simulations were commonly similar to the as-built
conditions, with both over-estimates and under-
estimates of heights. As with locational accuracy it
is challenging to match turbines in the simulation to
the as-built condition. The majority of turbines
simulated, however, were simulated slightly shorter
than the as-built conditions. A number of reasons
might explain this difference, not the least of which
is the difficulty in simulating objects of a fixed
height at an estimated distance from the camera. Yet
on the whole the simulations under-estimated the
tower and blade heights (a surrogate for rotor diame-
ter) in the simulations. In the Scottish Best practices
document, authors note that simulations ‘should at
least have the correct hub height and rotor diameter’
(Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005: 92).
Ancillary attributes are noticeable in their absence
from visual simulations. Access lanes and electricity
utilities (including transmission lines and equipment
vaults) are common ancillary attributes with wind
energy development. In the simulations these attrib-
utes are typically not illustrated, and for two vantage
points their visibility was noticeable, even substan-
tial (e.g., for vantage point #4, Figure 2). Multi-
phase transmission lines and poles on road rights-of-
way appear to have the greatest visibility of ancillary
attributes and have a visual impact that was not
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
 A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
simulated as part of the environmental screening re-
port. Best practices for simulations include require-
ments for associated infrastructure, saying that ‘if
these elements are likely to result in significant
impacts, either individually or collectively, they
should be included in photomontages’ (Horner +
Maclennan and Envision, 2005: 110).
The final assessment was for adequacy of simula-
tion materials as compared to the built experience.
The visual simulations were compared to the experi-
ence of viewing the landscape from a fixed position
using human field-of-view parameters (for binocular
vision) and to the experience of living within the
landscape with the freedom to view the horizon in
all directions. The simulation frame width was
smaller than all human field-of-vision parameters for
binocular vision found in the literature (and larger
than some focused fields-of-view), yet acceptable
for focused vision by a best practices report for wind
energy simulations (Horner + Maclennan and
Envision, 2005). Though a compromise width of
human field-of-vision was used the simulation
frames approximated about 41% of what a person
standing at that point in the landscape could see. The
number of turbines in the simulation frame therefore
was less than would be in a typical person’s field-of-
view: in one vantage point the number of turbines
visible to an average person was 50% more than in
the simulated view; in the other vantage point it was
more than one-and-a-half times the simulated view’s
number. The total number of turbines visible from
the vantage points is larger still, so the simulations
yield a poor estimate of the visibility of turbines
from either a human field-of-vision perspective or a
landscape immersion perspective (i.e., poor repre-
sentativeness). In this location the wind turbines sur-
round residents — they are not on a shoreline or
ridgeline, distant from viewers or seen typically
from one side — so the immersion perspective is
most representative.
In sum the visual simulations provided by the de-
veloper and their consultants in the environmental
screening report may mislead audiences with respect
to turbine number, location, and ancillary attributes
and, to a lesser degree, height. The simulations do
not adequately represent the development situation
In sum the visual simulations provided
by the developer and their consultants
in the environmental screening report
may mislead audiences with respect to
turbine number, location, and
ancillary attributes and, to a lesser
degree, height
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
for a typical person with either a fixed or sweeping
view, and simulations thus show lower numbers of
turbines than would be seen by a person at a vantage
point in this rural Ontario landscape. While heights
of turbine towers and blade lengths were similar to
development outcomes, for most cases these attrib-
utes are modestly under-represented. In this case the
visual simulations consistently imply less visual im-
pact than the developed reality. Best practices
suggest that simulations ‘can help illustrate the visu-
al impacts…to an audience that is less familiar with
windfarm developments, the particular landscape in
question, and/or how windfarms typically appear in
a landscape’ (Horner + Maclennan and Envision,
2005: 105). Given that wind energy development in
Ontario remains relatively novel and was provincially
unique at the time of the proposal documents re-
viewed here, the simulations should have better
communicated how the wind turbines would have
appeared in the breadth of the landscape setting.
More recent environmental screening reports still do
not always include visual simulations of likely post-
development outcomes (e.g., Dillon Consulting
Limited, 2009).
If the accuracy and representativeness of the sim-
ulations for the first phase of development are indic-
ative, the second-phase simulations might have also
under-estimated the number of turbines, heights and
rotor diameters, and ancillary attributes associated
with development. The same multi-disciplinary con-
sulting practice provided both sets of simulations,
though the individual technician(s) and technique(s)
may have changed. The Phase Two simulations
(Figure 4) are wider fields-of-view than Phase One
simulations, but this case study did not assess these
Phase Two simulations against built conditions.
Some photographic qualities of these simulations,
such as the season, colour of the sky and clouds, and
direction of rotor may compromise their legibility
(Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005; Bishop
and Miller, 2007).
Best practice documents and published research
provide substantial direction to guiding visual simu-
lations to yield accurate and adequate simulations
that fully represent the likely landscape change
(Horner + Maclennan and Envision, 2005; Uni-
versity of Newcastle, 2002; Bishop, 2002; Bishop
and Miller, 2007). Explicitly, visual simulations
should match the number, height, diameter and visu-
al experience of the development, even if perfect
accuracy is unachievable (Horner + Maclennan and
Envision, 2005; University of Newcastle, 2002). De-
tailed methods for constructing visual simulations
ensure replicability while removing potential bias
(real or perceived) and improving neutrality. There
is no evidence to suggest that the consulting profes-
sionals are affected by their commercial relationship
to the client, yet an impartial consultant who creates
the simulation based on developer-supplied data
would diminish any perception of potential conflicts-
of-interest. Organizations such as the International
313
A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development
Figure 4. Simulations provided for the second phase of the wind turbine development
Association for Impact Assessment could lead ef-
forts to share guidance for visual impact assessments
while cataloguing examples of before-and-after sim-
ulations and best practice case studies.
Best practice documents specifically for Ontario —
a location with a substantially-favourable renewable
energy policy (2009) — could build from the experi-
ences elsewhere and improve documentation and
elaborate explicit requirements for visual assessment.
Future environmental screening reports (particularly
the visual impact assessment) should continue to be
closely and independently scrutinized prior to being
used to inform decision-making or public processes
to yield unsurprising landscape changes.
Acknowledgements
This paper was funded in part by a research grant from a private
citizen in the area of study, and administered through the Univer-
sity of Guelph Office of Research. No limits apply to publication
and dissemination of the research results.
M Erik Coleman provided research assistant support to this
study, and Professor James R Taylor collaborated on a full review
of wind energy development of which this is a constituent part.
The research received support and encouragement from a private
citizen in the municipality and was aided by the accessibility of
municipal officials and the transparency with which they dis-
charged their civil service. I thank the editors and two anonymous
reviewers for comments on an early version of this manuscript.
References
Bishop, I D 2002. Determination of thresholds of visual impact:
the case of wind turbines. Environment and Planning B —
Planning & Design, 29(5), 707–718.
Bishop, I D and D R Miller 2007. Visual assessment of off-shore
314
wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement
and social variables. Renewable Energy, 32(5), 814–831.
Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects —
National Research Council 2007. Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
County of Bruce Planning & Economic Development Depart-
ment 2005. Application Requirements for Commercial Wind
Energy (Turbine) Facilities. Walkerton, Ontario: County of
Bruce.
Dillon Consulting Limited 2009. McLean’s Mountain Wind Farm
Environmental Screening Report/Environmental Impact
Statement. Toronto, Ontario.
Gipe, P 2002. Design as if people matter: aesthetic guidelines for
a wind power future. In Wind Power in View: Energy
Landscapes in a Crowded World, ed. M J Pasqualetti, P Gipe
and R W Righter, pp. 173–212. San Diego, California:
Academic Press.
Gipe, P 2003. British lessons to avoid anti-wind conflict — a best
practice guide. WindStats, windstats.com, 16, 7–9.
Horner + Maclennan and Envision 2005. Visual Analysis of
Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance. Inverness, Scotland:
Scottish Natural Heritage, The Scottish Renewables Forum,
Scottish Society of Directors of Planning.
Klick, H and E Smith 2010. Public understanding of and support
for wind power in the United States. Renewable Energy, 35(7),
1585–1591.
Krohn, S and S Damborg 1999. On public attitudes towards wind
power. Renewable Energy, 16(1–4), 954–960.
Lewis, G M 2008. High value wind: a method to explore the
relationship between wind speed and electricity locational
marginal price. Renewable Energy, 33(8), 1843–1853.
Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 24 November 2009.
Ontario’s Green Energy Act: Our Path to a Green Economy
and a Cleaner Environment. Available at <http://
www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/gea/>, last accessed 21
October 2010.
Sheppard, S R J 1989. Visual Simulation: A User’s Guide for
Architects, Engineers, and Planners. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Smardon, R C and J Karp 1993. The Legal Landscape:
Guidelines for Regulating Environmental and Aesthetic
Quality. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Taylor, J R, R C Corry, S Hall and L Balcerek 2006. Landscape
and Visual Assessment Guidance for Wind Energy Facilities.
Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph: 83.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011
 A case study on visual impact assessment for wind energy development

The Landscape Institute: Institute of Environmental Management Service.

and Assessment 2002. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment. New York: Spon Press.
University of Newcastle 2002. Visual Assessment of Windfarms:
Best Practice. Edinburgh: University of Newcastle.
USDA Forest Service 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook
for Scenery Management. Washington, DC: USDA Forest
Windpro 2008. Windpro. Available at <http://www.windpro.com>,
last accessed 18 June 2010.
Wood, G 2000. Is what you see what you get? Post-development
auditing of methods used for predicting the zone of visual
influence in EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
20(5), 537–336.

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2011 315