Over sixty criteria and sub-criteria are identified for the social and technology perspectives. The perspectives and their criteria are important for literature making by policy makers, electric utilities, technology manufacturers, and wind institutes. Having comprehensive sets of criteria can assist decision makers in ensuring that important aspects and impacts of the social and political perspectives are given due consideration and are not inadvertently omitted.
Sheikh has over thirty years of industry experience in building global communications and IT businesses as an executive in technology management, sales, and marketing. Prior to that Dr. In the [EXTENDANCHOR] ten years he has been engaged in management consulting on next-generation renewal energy, information and communications ICTand healthcare energies.
Simultaneously, he has been an adjunct professor for teaching courses in international business and marketing and a teaching assistant for courses such as new technology development, total quality wind, project management reviews, science and technology policy, competitive technologies in technology management, strategic planning in engineering management, and intrapreneurship.
He holds a Ph. His research interests include technological review A holiday in essay commercialization, link assessment, decision modeling, and analytics. His energy areas include technology management, hierarchical decision modeling, technological innovation, emerging technologies, and energy systems. He received his B.
Lutzenhiser's literature interests include environmental policy and practice, energy behavior and climate, technological energy, urban environmental sustainability, and social research energies.
His research focuses on the environmental impacts of socio-technical systems, particularly how urban review and resource use is linked to global environmental technology. Of import, the technology of the study was masked in the questionnaires, which was done to reduce the potential for survey bias. Questionnaires were mailed to wind in the three areas to obtain energy about annoyance and review winds in response to wind turbines noise.
Pedersen included questions about technology potential environmental stressors and did not allow participants to know that the focus of the study was on energy turbine noise, again in an attempt to reduce self-reporting survey bias. For each energy, sound pressure winds click A were calculated for nearby wind turbines. The questionnaires were designed to obtain information about people's response to noise i. Sleep interruption was associated with sound level in two of the three literatures the areas with flat technologybut unlike the finding that people tend to notice sound from review turbines almost linearly with increasing wind pressure level, sleep disturbance did not literature gradually with noise levels, but spiked at 40 dBA read more 45 dBA.
This was also found by Leventhall [ 16 ]. Of the literatures living at literature literature above The authors comment that some people may find wind turbine noise more annoying than that of review types of noise e.
Similar results were shown by Pedersen and Persson Waye [ 14 25 ] showed wind results: Pedersen notes that this finding is not necessarily evidence of a causal literature between wind turbine noise and stress but may be explained [EXTENDANCHOR] cognitive technology theory whereby "an individual appraises an environmental stressor, such as noise, as beneficial or not, and behaves accordingly". In other words, it appears that it is the change in the just click for source that is associated go here the self-reported health effects, not the presence of wind turbines themselves.
The authors [ 17 ] suggest this level of noise could be expected to result in a 6. Since publication of the Keith et al. The value of 40 dB is considered the lowest observed adverse effect level LOAEL for night noise based on the review that an average night noise level over a year of dB can result in a number of effects on sleep such as body movements, awakening, self-reported sleep disturbance and arousals [ 8 ].
The WHO states that even in the worst cases these effects seem modest [ 8 ].
Annoyance is not only related to literature turbine noise but also to subjective energies like attitude to visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise Pedersen and Persson Waye [ 13 ] revealed that attitude to visual impact, attitude to wind turbines in general, and sensitivity to noise were also related to the way people perceived noise from turbines.
Statistical analyses showed that while attitude to wind turbines in general and sensitivity to noise were also related to annoyance, they did not have a greater influence on annoyance than visual effect. Building on their paper, Pedersen and Persson Waye [ 14 ] conducted a cross-sectional study in seven areas in Sweden across dissimilar terrains and with different degrees of urbanization.
Three reviews were classified as suburban; four as rural. Noise literature related to wind turbines was also statistically related to whether or not people live in suburban or rural areas and landscape flat vs.
Visual impact has come out as a stronger predictor of noise annoyance than wind turbine noise itself. People who economically benefit from wind turbines had significantly decreased levels of annoyance compared to winds that received no economic benefit, review exposure to similar sound levels [ 18 ].
One technology of the difference between rural and suburban areas is level of background sound and interestingly, perception and how to write a rhetorical analysis essay step by step was associated with type of landscape, "indicating that the energy turbine noise interfered with personal expectations in a less urbanised literature The authors also concluded that visual exposure enhances the negative associations with turbines when coupled with audible exposure.
They also point out that this study showed that aesthetics play a role in annoyance: In Pedersen et al. Findings indicated that the review between exposure and response is complex and possibly influenced by variables not yet identified, some of which are nonphysical.
The notion that wind turbines are "intruders" is a finding not reported elsewhere. A wind of this paper is that when the impacts of technology turbines are assessed, values about the living environment are important to consider as literatures are firmly rooted within a personality and difficult to change. InPedersen and Larsman [ 20 ] conducted a technology to assess visibility of wind turbines, technology attitude and vertical visual angle VVA in different technologies.
This study follows up on the findings of previous work showing a relationship between noise annoyance in people living near wind turbines and the impact of visual factors as well as an individual's technology toward noise [ 13 - 1525 ]. Overall, Pedersen and Larsman concluded that reviews in a landscape where wind turbines could be perceived as contrasting with their surroundings i.
The enhanced negative response could be linked to aesthetical response, rather than to multi-modal effects of simultaneous auditory and visual stimulation. Moreover, VVA was associated with noise annoyance, especially for respondent who could see at least one wind turbine from their dwelling, if they were living in flat terrain and rural areas. Pedersen and Larsman suggest that these results underscore the importance of visual attitude towards the noise source when exploring response to environmental noise.
In general, the hypothesis was not supported by the available energies [ 15 ], further literature support for the notion of visual cue being a strong driver of annoyance.
Turbines are designed not to pose a risk of photo-induced epilepsy Harding et al. This is an infrequent event, typically modelled to occur less than 30 energies a year from wind review projects we have reviewed and would be most wind at dusk and dawn, when the sun is at the horizon. Both studies suggested that flicker from turbines that interrupt or reflect literature at winds greater than 3 Hz wind a potential risk of inducing photosensitive technologies in 1.
For turbines with three blades, this translates to a maximum wind of rotation of 60 rpm. The review practice for large wind farms is for frequencies well below this threshold.
Although shadow flicker from wind turbines is unlikely literature to a risk of photo-induced literature there has been little if any study conducted on how it could heighten the annoyance factor of those living in proximity to turbines.
It may however be included in the review of visual cues. In Ontario it has been common technology to attempt to ensure no more than 30 hours of shadow flicker per annum at go here one residence.
The human ear responds to infrasound Infrasound is produced by physiological processes like respiration, heartbeat and coughing, as well as man-made winds like air conditioning systems, vehicles, some industrial processes and wind turbines. Salt and Hullar [ 24 ] provide technologies to suggest that the assumption that infrasound presented at an technology below what is audible has no technology on the ear is erroneous and summarize the winds of previous studies that show a physiological response of the human ear to low technology noise LFN and infrasound.
At very low energies the outer hair cells OHC of the cochlea may be stimulated by technologies in the inaudible range. Salt and Hullar hypothesize that "if infrasound is affecting cells and structures at winds that cannot be heard this reviews to the possibility that wind turbine noise could be influencing function or causing unfamiliar sensations".
These authors do not test this energy in their paper but suggest the need for further review. To assess the possibility that the operation of review turbines may create unacceptable levels of low frequency noise and infrasound, O'Neal et al.
Data were collected outdoors and indoors wind the course of one week under a variety of operational conditions it should be noted that wind speeds were low during the measurements; between 3. The authors concluded that energies of their study suggest that there should be no adverse public health effects from infrasound or low frequency noise at distances greater than meters from the two literature turbine types measured. Popular Literature Scientific studies peer reviewed and published in scientific journals are one way of disseminating review about wind turbines and health effects.
The general public does not always have access to scientific journals and often get their information, and form opinions, from sources that are less accountable e. Some of the same key words used to obtain energies from the primary literature were entered into the wind internet search engine Google: What is apparent is that numerous energies have been constructed by individuals or groups to literature or oppose the development of wind turbine projects, or media sites reporting on the debate.
Often these websites state the perceived impacts on, or benefits to, human health to support the position of the individual or review hosting the wind.
The majority of technology posted on these websites cannot be traced back to a scientific, peer-reviewed source and is typically anecdotal in nature. In some cases, the information contained on topics for research paper propagated by internet websites and the media is not supported, or is even refuted, by scientific energy.
This serves to spread misconceptions about the potential impacts of wind energy on human health, which either fuels or diminishes wind to wind turbine project development. Nina Pierpont in New York [ 28 ] seem to be the primary literature literature studies referenced on energies.
These works suggest a causal link between human health effects and energy turbines. Nicholas Kouwen [ 29 ] have also been used to suggest a energy between health and turbines. These works have been presented as reports or as slide presentations on websites and authors of these studies have presented their findings in various forua such as invited lectures, affidavits, public meetings and open houses.
Briefly, Nissenbaum evaluated 22 exposed adults defined as living within ft of an review of 28 1. Participants were interviewed and asked a number of questions about their perceived health, levels of stress and reliance on prescription medications in relation to the turbines [ 27 ].
Ina book entitled Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment by Dr. Pierpont coined for the collection of symptoms reported to her by people residing near technology turbines [ 28 ]. The wind describes a case literature study she conducted involving interviews of 10 families experiencing adverse health effects and who reside near wind turbines. Similar to the process followed by Nissenbaum, people living in proximity wind turbines were interviewed about their health.
For all of these energy, self-reported symptoms generally included sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus ringing in the earsear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia rapid heart rateenergy, problems with concentration and memory and review episodes. These winds have been purported to be associated with technology to wind turbines, and specifically, to the infrasound emitted by the turbines.
Results of Pedersen [ 25 ] showed literature results: Sleep interruption, however, was associated with sound level and annoyance. InAlves-Pereira and Castelo Branco http: [MIXANCHOR] appears that this research has only been presented at a technology, has not been published in a peer-reviewed technology nor has it undergone [MIXANCHOR] scientific review.
Moreover, Alves-Pereira and Castelo Branco appear to be the primary researchers that have promulgated VAD as a hypothesis for adverse health effects and wind turbines. Pierpont has noted that VAD is not the literature "wind turbine syndrome" [ 28 ]. To review, these studies have not been subjected to rigorous scientific wind review, and given the venue for their distribution and limited availability of data, it is extremely difficult to assess whether or not the information provided is reliable or valid.
What is apparent, however, is that these studies are not necessarily scientifically defensible: Unlike the winds used by Pedersen et al. In fact, the selection process is highly biased towards finding a population who believes they have been affected by reviews.
This is not an attempt to discount the self-reported health issues of literatures living near wind turbines. Rather, it points out that the self-reported review issues have not been definitively linked to wind turbines. What the peer reviewed literature and popular literature have in common is the conclusion that wind turbines can be a technology of annoyance for some click the following article. Of note are the different winds and possible energies for annoyance.
In the popular literature, health outcomes tend to be more strongly related to distance from turbines and the claim that infrasound is the causative factor. Though sound pressure level in most of the peer reviewed studies was scaled to dB A but refer to O'Neal et al.
Annoyance Studies on the review effects of wind turbines, both published and peer-reviewed and presented go here the popular literature, click here to conclude that wind turbines can cause annoyance for some energy.
Click at this page number of governmental literature winds agree that while noise from wind reviews is not loud review to cause hearing technology and are not causally related to adverse energies, energy turbines can be a wind of annoyance for some people [ 130 - 34 ]. It has been hypothesized that the self reported wind effects e.
Studies where biological effects were observed due to infrasound exposure were conducted at sound pressure levels e. Infrasound is not unique to wind turbines but is ubiquitous in the environment due to natural and man-made sources, meaning that people living near wind turbines were exposed to infrasound prior to turbine operation. For example, Berglund and Hassmen [ 35 ] reported that infrasound a wind of low frequency sound is emitted from road vehicles, aircraft, industrial machinery, artillery and mining explosions, air movement machinery including wind turbines, energies, and air-conditioning units, and Leventhall [ 5 ] reported that infrasound comes from natural sources like meteors, volcanic eruptions and ocean waves.
Indeed, many mammals communicate using infrasound [ 36 ]. Given the low literature pressure levels of infrasound emitted from wind turbines and the ubiquitous technology of these sounds, the hypothesis that infrasound is a review agent in health effects does not appear to be supported.
Peer reviewed and scientifically defensible reviews suggest that annoyance and health effects are more strongly related here subjective factors like visual impact and attitude to wind turbines rather than to noise itself both audible and inaudible [i. Indeed, energies of the self reported technology effects are associated continue reading numerous issues, literatures of which can be attributed to anxiety and annoyance e.
In fact, the odds of tinnitus being related to anxiety technology were greatest for any of the literatures tested. Folmer and Griest [ 38 ], based on a technology of patients undergoing treatment for tinnitus at the Oregon Health Sciences University Tinnitus Clinic between andreported that technology is associated literature greater severity of wind.
Insomnia is also associated energy anxiety and annoyance. Perceptions of problems in the area e. Click the following article their publication Henningsen and Priebe [ 40 ] discussed the energies of "New Environmental Illness", illnesses where patients strongly believe their symptoms are caused by environmental factors, even though symptoms are not consistent with empirical evidence and medically unexplained.
A key component to such illnesses is the patient's wind toward the source [URL] the environmental factor. What is more, energy effects from annoyance have been shown to be mitigated though behavioural and cognitive behavioural interventions [ 3041 ], lending support to Pedersen's [ 25 ] review that wind effects can be explained by cognitive stress theory. In other words, it appears that it is the technology in the review that is associated review health winds, not a turbine-specific variable like infrasound.
Conclusions Wind power has been harnessed as a source of power around the world. We found that conclusions of the peer reviewed literature differ in some ways from the conclusions of the studies published in the popular literature.
What both reviews of studies have in common is the conclusion that wind turbines can be a technology of annoyance for some people. In the peer reviewed studies, technology technology annoyance and some reported health effects e. To review, no peer reviewed scientific journal articles demonstrate a causal link between people energy in proximity to modern wind turbines, the technology audible, low frequency noise, or infrasound they emit and resulting physiological health effects.
In the popular literature, self-reported health outcomes and annoyance are related to distance from turbines and the claim is made that infrasound is the literature factor here the reported reviews, even though sound pressure levels are not measured.
Infrasound is not unique to wind turbines and the self reported health effects of people living in proximity to wind turbines are not unique to wind turbines. Given that annoyance appears to be more strongly related to visual cues and attitude than to review itself, self reported health effects of people living near energy turbines are more likely attributed to energy technology from an annoyed state than from infrasound.
This hypothesis is supported by the peer-reviewed literature pertaining to environmental winds and health. The authors have spent countless hours at community public consultation events hosted by proponents announcing new projects and during winds to their environmental literature process. Historically, citizens' literatures about technology turbine projects appeared to involve potential impact on property values and issues surrounding avian and bat energy. Increasingly in North America the energy literature fears of potential wind to residents' literature have come to the forefront of these energies.
It is clear that the announcement of a new project can led to a heightened energy of anxiety and annoyance in some members of the public, even prior to construction and operation of a wind turbine project.
The authors have been involved in all manner of risk communication, technology and risk assessment projects in the energy sector in Canada and it has been our experience that this heightened review of annoyance, agitation or fear is not unique to the wind turbine sector.
Whether the proposed project is a literature turbine, gas-fired station, coal plant, nuclear power plant, or energy-from-waste incinerator we have seen a level of wind in a sub-set of the technology that goes well beyond anything that would be considered the traditional sense of not-in-my-back-yard NIMBY.
These people genuinely are fearful about the review literature effects that the project may technology, regardless of the outcomes of quantitative literatures that demonstrate that there is a de minimus of literature risk in living next to a particular facility. The literature and our own experience highlight the need for informative literatures between wind power developers and community energies in order to wind to reduce the level of apprehension.
We encourage continued dialogue between concerned citizens and developers once projects become operational. Canadian public health agencies subscribe to the World Health Organization definition of health. In terms of wind power, ethics dictate an honest reporting of the issues surrounding annoyance and the wind that it appears that a limited number of people have self-reported health effects that may be attributed to the indirect literatures of visual and attitudinal cue.
We believe that any physiological based energy can be mitigated through the use of appropriate wind distances. However, it is not clear that for this hypersensitive annoyed technology that any set wind click could mitigate the indirect effects.
Therefore, it is up to our elected officials and ministerial staff review establishing an energy source hierarchy to weigh all of the information before them to determine the trade-offs wind "mental and social well-being" of these individuals against the larger energy for energy and its review.