TY - JOUR
TI - Primary vs grey: A critical evaluation of literature sources used to assess the impacts of offshore wind farms
AU - Szostek, C
AU - Edwards-Jones, A
AU - Beaumont, N
AU - Watson, S
T2 - Environmental Science & Policy
AB - The evidence-base for environmental and social impacts of offshore wind farms (OWF) is increasing with the exponential global growth of the offshore energy sector. In the UK, planning and consenting processes are lengthy (7+ years) and rely largely on evidence from grey literature sources. To meet 2030 and 2050 renewable energy targets and marine net gain ambition, policy and decision makers require access to the best available data. Translating environmental impacts into ecosystem services (ES) provides a qualitative framework by which to evaluate positive and negative outcomes. We review and synthesise UK grey literature (2012–2022) relating to OWF impacts and compare reported ES outcomes with those from global primary literature (2002–2021). Grey literature portrays a largely negative (71%) view of ES outcomes and fails to represent many positive ES outcomes reported in primary literature. In primary literature, 28% of reported ES outcomes are positive, but in UK grey literature this is just 2%. Evidence gaps are highlighted for both literature types, with major gaps for decommissioning outcomes, and sparse evidence for Provisioning ES (8%), Regulating ES (7%) and specific operational pressures. We recommend evidence from both literature types is used to achieve environmentally sound decision making and expedite planning and consenting times.
DA - 2024/04//
PY - 2024
VL - 154
SP - 103693
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124000273
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103693
LA - English
KW - Wind Energy
KW - Fixed Offshore Wind
KW - Floating Offshore Wind
KW - Changes in Flow
KW - Collision
KW - Habitat Change
KW - Bats
KW - Birds
KW - Fish
KW - Invertebrates
KW - Marine Mammals
KW - Physical Environment
KW - Human Dimensions
ER -