4.8 Article

Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Stadteregion Aachen

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 222-243

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.138

关键词

Wind farm siting; Multi-criteria decision making; Analytic Hierarchy Process; GIS

资金

  1. E.ON Energy Research Center foundation (gGmbH) [07-32]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wind energy is one of the most important renewable energy sources in Germany and plays a key role regarding energy and climate policy targets of the German government. However, a further diffusion of wind farms involves strong spatial implications that refer to various adverse effects on landscape (onshore wind), noise level, and wildlife. Negative environmental impacts caused by the sometimes suboptimal siting of wind farms have induced an increasing gap between the social acceptance of this technology on the global and local levels. Particularly on the local level, siting processes of wind farm projects often trigger public protest. The aim of this paper is to improve the siting assessment by providing a holistic multi-criteria decision making approach that incorporates techno-economic, socio-political, and environmental criteria, which are defined in a way that social acceptance-related issues are specifically emphasized. We apply a GIS-based Analytic Hierarchy Process approach, where a group of local experts and stakeholders is asked to pairwise compare the incorporated criteria in order to derive the relative importance of each criterion. The results obtained indicate that 9.4% of the study area is still available for wind energy development, whereas only 1.74% of the region is characterized by high suitability. In particular, the northern part of the region offers substantial unexploited wind energy potential. A comparison with the location of existing wind farms validates the reliability and accuracy of the model results. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据