POSTNOTE
Number 999 January 2015
The Effects of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
As a consequence of its geographical
location, the UK has great potential for wind
power. At a time of increasing emphasis on
wind power to meet renewable energy
targets, this POSTnote summarises the
effects of wind turbines on wildlife and
biodiversity, highlighting ways any negative
impacts can be mitigated against.
Background
Wind turbines are a renewable, low-carbon technology for
energy production. They harness the kinetic energy of wind
using rotating blades, and convert this into electrical energy
1
via an electricity-generating turbine. Wind turbines can be
sited on or off-shore, each raising unique concerns over the
different ecosystems upon which they impose.
Renewable energy sources, including wind power, will help
reduce the impact of climate change, predicted to threaten
biodiversity worldwide. Assuming mid-range forecasts for
global warming, it is estimated that 15-37% of species will
2
be committed to extinction worldwide by 2050. Although a
collective shift towards renewable energy is seen as
necessary and globally positive, implementing the
technology can have damaging effects on local wildlife
which should be considered.
The UK fell short of its first Europe 2020 target in obtaining
4% of its total energy consumption from renewable sources
by 2012. (Box 1) Since then the UKs total energy
contribution from renewables has increased to 5.2% in
2013, 31% of which came from wind power. Electrical
energy from wind in 2014 equated to 434 million, enough
to power around 7 million homes.
3 turbines that are logistically easier to construct. Many sites
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA; Tel: 020 7219 2840; email: post@parliament.uk www.parliament.uk/post
Overview
n Wind power can reduce dependence on
fossil fuels and the negative effects of
climate change for wildlife and the
environment.
n National interest groups and public opinion
are largely in favour of wind turbines,
providing vulnerable species and areas of
natural beauty remain protected.
n Site selection is important, particularly for
onshore wind turbines, to minimise habitat
loss and collisional deaths.
n The long-term effects of wind turbines on
wildlife are difficult to establish, due to the
lack of before and after studies.
n Technologies to mitigate negative effects
during operation exist, but their efficacy
largely remains unestablished.
Offshore wind sites are typically higher
capacity and can enhance local populations
of economically important species.
Wind turbines perception
National interest groups and public opinion remain largely
positive towards wind turbines, with ~70% of the public in
4
favour of developments near them. Opposition to new wind
turbine sites arises when particularly vulnerable species are
likely to be affected or the proposed site is in an area of
natural beauty.
5,6
Wildlife and biodiversity
Wind turbines can affect both local and migrating wildlife
and while the immediate effects from habitat loss and
disruption during construction are largely negative, the long-
term effects on wildlife are less clear. The number of before
and after studies monitoring wildlife is small in comparison
to the number of wind turbine sites across the UK. Whilst
there are many short term, species focused studies, little
attention has been paid to the long-term consequences for
biodiversity.
Onshore Wind Turbines
The majority of wind energy sites across the UK are
onshore (667 from a total of 690). Onshore wind sites
generally have lower capacity than offshore. They are often
restricted in size by their location and comprised of smaller
that would provide good energy output may already be
POSTnote 999 January 2015 The Effects of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
protected land areas due to the presence of endangered or
at risk species (see box 2 for wildlife relevant planning
procedure).
Box 1. Wind power in the UK
Concerns over climate change (POSTnote 295) have resulted in an
increased focus on energy obtained from renewable sources
(POSTnote 315). The Europe 2020 initiative states that 20% of the EUs
total energy consumption must come from renewable energy sources by
2020 (POSTnote 315).7
The UKs target for 2020 is to have 15% of energy coming from
renewable source. Currently the UK has 690 (667 onshore sites and 23
off short sites), accounting for 5,948 turbines and 54% of the UKs
renewables electrical energy mix.
The number of wind farm sites is set to rise by 13%, despite this
increase set for 2015/2016, the government approval rate for wind farms
was the lowest it has been for 6 years in 2013/2014.8
Site selection
Avoiding areas with high avian densities, migration routes,
feeding areas and habitats of at risk/endangered species is
the best way to ensure minimal impact from wind turbines
9
on birds, bats and other wildlife. Careful site selection can
9
reduce costly minimisation factors being enforced later.
Habitat Disturbance
Data comparing operational and non-operational wind farm
sites suggests that disturbance causes more damage to bird
populations than collision deaths. Many onshore wind farms
proposed are in upland environments because of the
favourable combination of high wind resources and low
human settlement. This often overlaps with bird territories of
high conservational importance and numerous upland
dwelling birds are particularly sensitive to habitat
10
disturbance. Development can lead to a 30% reduction in
10,11
expected bird densities within a 1km buffer zone. Birds
re-locate and use habitat away from site infra-structure,
including access tracks post construction, resulting in a 15-
53% reduction in breeding within 500 m of wind farm sites,
10,12
depending on the species. It is not clear for many bird
species if this behaviour is due to wind turbine presence,
12
wind farm noise, site traffic or human disturbance. This
puts pressure on species that may already be at risk or have
9 one year after completion of construction. In contrast,
a low population turnover.
Information on bird movement can be used to establish
sensitivity areas and aid site selection: monitoring of golden
eagles (a large raptor awarded the highest Legal Protection
status) in Scotland showed 98% of bird movement was
detected less than 6km from nests, with core areas at less
than 3km, giving obvious zones to avoid during wind farm
13
site development.
Site selection is considered the most important factor
regarding maintenance of healthy bat populations. Sites
should be evaluated based on bats year-round use of an
area. Guidelines published recommend safe distances to
place turbines from habitat features, eg. hedges and tree
lines. Natural England interim guidance recommends a 50
Page 2
m separation distance, whereas Eurobats recommends 200
14,15,16
m. Computer models have been developed to aid
17
decision making in site selection for bats.
Flight styles and paths
Wind farms located next to ridges, steep slopes and similar
landscape features can pose a threat to larger birds that use
18
up-drafts for altitude gaining or soaring flight. This style of
flight is characteristic of larger birds with reduced flight
19
maneuverability. Bats are flexible and varied in their use of
landscape, and commonly fly in open areas suitable for wind
farm development. They actively investigate new structures
in their territories, looking for new foraging, feeding or
roosting areas. Although most species of bats do not
commonly fly at wind turbine heights, some are attracted to
14,15,20
wind turbine blades by congregating insects. Some
already at-risk species would be considered high-risk
around wind farm sites; including the Noctule and Leislers
14,15,20
bat.
Box 2. Relevant UK Planning Policy and considerations
All offshore and most onshore installations (greater than 50 MW) are
treated as nationally significant infrastructure. Decisions are made by
democratically accountable ministers in accordance with the national
policy statements (EN-1 and EN-3) for energy infrastructure, as set out
by The Planning Act 2008. These state that development should
avoid significant harm to biodiversity, including mitigation.
Proposers are required to undertake Environmental Impact and
Habitat Regulations Assessments where appropriate, covering all
aspects of the infrastructure. Decision makers for offshore sites are
bound by sections 125 & 126 of Marine and coastal access act
2009, requiring them to act in a manner to further the conservation
objectives of marine conservation zones. To date, the RSPB has only
objected to around 6% of proposed developments they are consulted
on.5 Sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) are given high protection,
with rare exception where benefits significantly outweigh any damage
done.
Construction
An increase in human activity and new infrastructure are
the main causes of disturbance to wildlife. Population
densities of red grouse, snipe and curlews at wind farm sites
across the UK dropped by 40-53% as result of construction
work, with only the red grouse showing population recovery
21
skylark populations have been observed to increase at wind
turbine sites compared to reference sites. However it is
unclear whether wind turbines are the sole cause of these
21
variations.
Operational effects
Avoidance behavior shown by birds during construction of
9
wind farms persists into the operational time. Birds are
known to have excellent vision, yet many still fatally collide
9
with wind turbines. Birds in flight look to the ground for
hunting, foraging and navigation. Whilst wind turbines rotate
slowly, their large size means blades move at speeds of up
9,22
to 114mph, meaning they are seen with a motion blur.
Consequently, birds have difficulty identifying turbine blades
as an impact threat. During poor weather conditions the
POSTNOTE 999 January 2015 The Effects of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
number of collisions significantly increases, presumed to be
9,22
because of reduced visibility or high wind speeds.
Aviation warning lights on wind turbines have not shown a
23
significant effect on collision deaths however lit sites can
24
be distracting to migrating birds, resulting in large fatalities,
25
but resident birds may acclimatise.
It is thought insects congregate around wind turbines,
attracted by emitted heat or blade movement, creating new,
14,15,20
dangerous, feeding grounds for bats. This can result
in either direct collisions or internal damage from localised
14,15
high wind speeds generated by turbine blades.
Mitigation and Minimisation
Shut Down of Wind Turbines
Curtailing turbine operating times during seasons and/or
powering down to fixed blades in times of bad weather can
reduce the number collision deaths with small effects to
9
overall energy yields. For one at-risk owl species an
estimated 34% reduction in death rates would be seen for
26
only a 14% reduction in power output during winter.
Manning wind farms, gives the option to shut down turbines
on demand if a collision risk is seen is expensive, but would
offer lower energy losses than a seasonal shut down. Bird
radar and video systems have been developed to detect
between 76-96% of birds around a wind farm and offer a
27,28
way to shut down on demand without manning a farm.
Similar systems are available for monitoring bat movements,
however as bat height is not always consistent, care should
14,15,20,28,29
be taken in the placement such systems.
Wind farm layout and turbine types
Re-modelling old wind farms to improved layouts, or
decommissioning problematic wind farms, decreases
impacts on bird populations but carries large financial
9 surround noise propagation; conditions at one site will rarely
worries. Slower moving and higher wind turbine blades
reduce collision risks, as the impact zones are higher than
the usual flight paths of foraging birds and bats. Wind
turbines perpendicular to a birds main line of flight are
9,28
though to increase collision risks.
Increasing Blade Visibility
Blade colouration (painting patterns on wind turbine blades)
has been shown to reduce motion blur in a laboratory
environment, also making them less attractive to
congregating insects. A widespread implementation of blade
colouration is yet to be seen so effects in the field cannot yet
30,31
be assessed. Some birds and bats have vision in the
ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of light and painting wind turbines
with UV-paint to aid visibility has been suggested, but has
previously proven ineffective when used as a method to
32
avoid bird strikes with windows.
Wind Farm Deterrence
Sound devices are used to scare-off wildlife from wind farm
sites, however animals may become habituated to the
sounds and it may only prove effective on a limited number
9 contrast, Grey seal numbers at Scroby Sands showed a
of species. Strong avoidance effects are seen when using
33
species-specific distress sounds, gun-shot sounds or ultra
34
sonic boom boxes for bats. The location of the sound
Page 3
deterrent relative to the wind farm may prove to be
35
important. Laser systems have also been suggested as a
deterrent, but will only work for nocturnal animals and have
9,36
yet to be implemented.
Habitat Management
Damage caused by wind farms can be compensated for by
maintaining habitat at a site away and independent from
9
wind farms. This approach is opposed by conservationists
and should considered as a last resort, and many fear this
approach may not reduce negative impacts to an acceptable
9,37
level.
Offshore Wind Turbines
The UK has great potential for offshore wind generation.
Despite the hostile environments giving technical challenges
and more structural wear and tear, the higher average wind
speeds make offshore sites more desirable. Although these
sites tend to draw less public opposition, some locations are
1
restricted due to fishing and shipping. Offshore wind
turbines could impact the ecology of the sea bed, fish and
sea birds. The London Array (one of the worlds largest
offshore wind farms) with 175 turbines, was declined
expansion permission in 2014 due to concerns about the
negative impacts on seabirds (Box 2).
38
Construction Effects
Pile-Driving
Pile-driving remains the most common method of offshore
wind farm installation, yet it generates violent vibrations over
39
a broad frequency range. Severe effects, such as death or
hearing loss, are only a concern in acoustically sensitive
40,41
mammals and fish at close distances. The effects of pile
driving may be felt up to 80 km away but unresolved issues
42
be directly applicable to another. There is little evidence
linking construction noise to large impacts on fish behaviour,
43
e.g. in the common European species, Cod and Herring.
The harbour porpoise (common European waters) relies
heavily on sound for orientation and foraging, and whilst
there is little overlap between pile-driving noise and the
41
auditory sensitivity of harbour porpoises, a decrease in
acoustic activity is observed in porpoises during pile-driving
(taking hours to recover), and erratic swimming patterns
44
were observed up to 15km away. Bottlenose dolphins
show similar sensitivity to piling-driving noise and are
45
expected to show similar behavioural changes.
UK waters are internationally important for the Harbour and
Grey seals, hosting 33% and 45% of their EU populations
respectively. During site construction at Scroby Sands
(Norfolk, UK) the number of hauled-out (on land) Harbour
46
seals decreased by 48-58%. An ~80% recovey of seal
numbers was seen post-construction. Similar effects on
47
Harbour seals in Denmark have also been recorded. In
continuous increase over the same time. The causes of this
POSTnote 999 January 2015 The Effects of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
differing behaviour remain unclear, but piling noise effects
46
on seal prey is a leading hypothesis.
Other Consequences
Physical constructions occupy less than one percent of the
space at a wind farm site, meaning direct habitat loss is
usually insignificant unless placed atop the habitat of
48
sensitive species. In rare circumstances, poor site
selection has lead to a negative impact on species by
49
limiting foraging grounds.
Ship traffic increases markedly during construction and as
hauled-out Harbour seals are known to enter the water as a
50,51
response to ships passing within 500 m this poses a
threat. Additional time spent in cold water can disrupt
50
energy balances and cause thermal stress in seal pups.
Operational Effects
Habitat Changes
Due to safety concerns and risk of entanglement, certain
types of fishing are often banned within wind farms. The
absence of destructive fishing methods, such as bottom
52,53
trawling, could be beneficial for the surrounding seabed.
Wind turbines may also provide additional artificial habitat,
leading to local increases in the density of species such as
54
the blue mussel that attach to hard surfaces. This has led
to aggregations of some fish species at wind farms, likely
due to an increase in prey sources, as well as shelter
55
provided by the turbines and fishing bans at sites. It is not
clear whether these local increases in density are due to
changes in distribution, or an overall increase in fish
56
populations over a wider area. If fishing is allowed within
these areas it may lead to higher catch rates without an
actual increase in fish stocks, and could therefore have a
55
negative impact on fish populations overall.
Bird Collision Risk
Adult mortality through collisions may have larger effects on
seabird populations than terrestrial birds, as lifespan tends
57,58
to be longer and breeding slower. There is little data
available on collision rates given the difficulty of measuring
59
this at sea. It is possible that some species may use wind
farms as feeding grounds due to the aggregations of fish in
9 sites must be carefully assessed to determine potential
these areas, increasing the likelihood of collisions.
Alternatively some bird species may show avoidance
behaviours similar to that at onshore wind farms and
57,58
redirect their flight paths to avoid the turbines. This can
affect their energetic demands, with possible negative
57
consequences on survival and reproduction.
Mitigation and Minimisation
During Construction
The effects associated with construction may be minimised
by avoiding construction during vulnerable times of year for
endangered or economically important species, for example
60
during the reproductive period for cod. 24-hour working
policies are recommended to shorten the construction
61
phase.
POST is an office of both Houses of Parliament, charged with providing independent and balanced analysis of policy issues that have a basis in science and technology.
POST is grateful to Elizabeth Baggaley, Caitlin Brumby, Bethan Hindle, Amy Jowett and Christopher Rosslowe for researching this briefing and to all contributors and
reviewers. For further information on this subject, please contact the co-author, Caitlin Brumby. Parliamentary Copyright 2015 Image copyright: creative commons licence.
Page 4
Deterrents such as seal scarers and bubble walls may be
used to induce avoidance behaviour during construction
periods to prevent hearing impairment in marine
62,63,64
mammals. It should be noted that displacement of
these individuals may have further consequences,
especially if the wind farm site is ecologically important, as a
62,63
foraging or reproductive ground.
Efficient Space Use
There are increasing conflicts with marine space use,
particularly between fishing and biodiversity conservation,
necessitating efficient space use both for the benefit of
wildlife and for social and economic reasons. Wind farms
may therefore function as multi-use areas, providing good
space for aquaculture, especially given the expected
increases in abundance in economically important species
65,66
such as mussels, crabs and lobster. Co-location of
economically beneficial activities such as these may allow
other areas to be reserved for wildlife as Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs). Alternatively, given that the long-term
impacts appear to be minimal for most species, some
offshore wind farms themselves could be designated as
52,67
MPAs.
Structure and Design
As with onshore, turbines designs can be adjusted to
58
minimise risk of seabird and migrating bird collisions.
Although not fully understood, there may be effects on
wildlife from electromagnetic fields emitted by cables
transmitting electricity to shore. Fish using electromagnetic
fields for migration may be affected but this can be
68,69
minimised by insulation or burial of cables. The impact
of noise from operational turbines and the effects of this on
56
wildlife is expected to be minimal, but this is not proven.
Summary
Utilising wind power is important for reducing carbon
emissions and limiting the effects of climate change, which
are beneficial to global wildlife and biodiversity. However, as
with any manmade structure, wind turbines have local
implications for wildlife. Effects differ between sites and
depend on the habitat and species present, so prospective
impacts on wildlife. Cost-effective mitigation measures are
available, and when combined with appropriate site
selection, disruption to wildlife can be minimised. Site
assessments will add to baseline data, necessary to further
study the long-term effects of wind turbines on wildlife. Wind
power is at a crucial stage of development in the UK; it is
vital we understand the implications for wildlife so
progression may follow a sustainable path.
Endnotes
1 th
Wind Power, House of Commons Research Paper 99/55, 26 May 1999.
2
Thomas, C.D, et al., 2004. Nature , 427, 145-148.
3
Renewable UK, Wind Energy in the UK, State of the Industry Report 2014.
Available from: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-
energy/uk-wind-energy-database/
POSTNOTE 999 January 2015 The Effects of Wind Turbines on Wildlife Page 5

4 38
ComRes survey September 2013. [Online]. Available from: Wind Power Offshore, 2014. [Online]. Available from:
http://comres.co.uk/polls/BBC_Radio_5live_Energy_Day_Public_Poll_Septe http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1281530/london-array-phase-2-
mber_2013.pdf extension-scrapped
5 39
RSPB. 2014. Wind Farms. [Online]. Available from: Nedwell, J. & Howell, D. 2004. A Review of Offshore Windfarm Related
http://www.rspb.org.uk/forprofessionals/policy/windfarms/ Underwater Noise Sources. Report by Subacoustech Ltd. pp 63.
6 40
National Trust. 2012. Our position on wind energy. [Online]. Available from: Nedwell, J, et al., 2007. Measurement and Interpretation of Underwater
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356393703350/ Noise During Construction and Operation of Offshore Windfarms in UK
7
The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC. Waters. Report by Subacoustech Ltd. pp 85.
8 41
Renewable UK, Wind Energy in the UK, State of the Industry Report 2014. Thomsen, F, et al., 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine
9
Marques, A.T, et al., 2014. Biological Conservation, 179, 40-52. mammals and fish, biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd.
10 42
Pearce-Higgins, J.W, et al., 2009. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(6),1323- Madsen, P.T, et al., 2006. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 309, 279-295.
43
1331. Wahlberg, M. & Westerberg, H, 2005. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 288, 295-309.
11 44
Renewable UK 2010. Tougaard, J, et al., 2003. Short-Term Effects of the Construction of Wind
12
Leddy, K.L, et al., 1999. The Wilson Bulletin, 111(1), 100-104. Turbines on Harbour Porpoises at Horns Reef. Report by DHI, National
13
McLeod, D.R.A, et al., Avian Science, 2. Environmental Research Institute (NERI), and TechWise A/S. pp 72.
14
Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance. Natural England 45
David, J, 2006. Water and Environmental Journal, 20, 48-54.
technical note TIN051, Third edition March 2004.
46
15 Skeate, E.R, et al., 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(4), 872-881.
Jones, E, et al., 2009. Determining the potential impact of wind turbines on
47
Edrn, S, 2004. Effects from the Construction of Nysted Offshore Wind
bat populations in Britain. Report to Defra.
16 Farm on Seals in Rdsand Seal Sanctuary Based on Remote Video
Eurobats, Wind Turbines and Bat Populations. [Online]. Available from:
Monitoring. Report by ENERGI E2 and National Environmental Research
http://www.eurobats.org/node/874
17 Institute (NERI). pp 33.
Kumagai, J, 2012. Fixing Wind Powers Bat Problem. IEEE Spectrum.
48
18 Petersen, J.K, & Mlam, T, 2006. Ambio, 35(2), p75.
Duerr, A.E, 2012. PLoS One, 7(4).
49
19 Larsen, J.K, & Guillemette, M, 2007. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44: 516
de Lucas, M, et al., 2008. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(6), 1695-1703.
20 522.
Horn, J.W, 2008. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1), 123-132.
50
21 Jansen, J.K, et al., 2010. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(6),11861194.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W, et al., 2012. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(2).
51
22 Andersen, S, et al., 2011. Behavioural responses of harbour seals to
Khan, S,2014. Strategic Technology (IFOST) 322-325.
23 human-induced disturbances. Report by Aarhus University and University of
Kerlinger, P, et al., 2010. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology,122(4), 744-
Southern Denmark.
754.
52
24 Bergstrom, L., et al., 2014. Environmental Research Letters, 9.
Gauthreaux, Jr, et al., 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating
53
Thrush, S.F, & Dayton, P.K, 2002. Annual Review of Ecology and
birds: Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press,
Systematics, 33,449-473.
Washington, DC, USA.
54
25 Krone, R, et al., 2013. Marine Environmental Research, 85, 1-12.
Mouritsen, H, 2005. PNAS, 102(23), 8339-8344.
55
26 Reubens, J.T, et al., 2014. Hydrobiologia, 727, 121-136.
Smallwood, K.S, 2011. [Online]. Available from:
56
Bergstrom, L, et al., 2013. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 485, 199-210.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et_al_for_nextera_burro
57
Furness, R.W, et al., 2013. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 56-
wing_owl_distribution_and_abundance_study.pdf
27 66.
May, R, et al., 2012. [Online]. Available from:
58
Johnston, A, et al., 2014. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 31-41.
http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/rapport/2012/910.pdf
59
28 Bradbury, G, et al., 2014. Plos One,9.
Collins, J., & Jones, G, 2009. Acta Chiropterologica, 11(2), 343-350.
60
29 Hammar, L, et al., 2014. Renewable Energy, 66, 414-424.
Levitan, D, et al., 2011. [Online]. Available from:
61
Government report, DECC, (2011), National Policy Statement for
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/wind/radar-systems-a-
Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).
solution-to-wind-powers-bird-and-bat-problem.
62
30 Brandt, M.J, 2013. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 475, 291-302.
Hodos, W, 2003. Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions
63
Madsen, P.T, et al., 2006. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 309, 279-295.
with Wind Turbines, National Renewable Energy Laboratory report.
64
31 Lucke, K, 2011. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 3406-
Walker, M, 2010. Wind turbines wrong colour for wildlife, BBC Earth News.
32 3412.
Klem, D.J, et al., 2009. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology,121(2), 314-321.
65
33 Buck, B.H, et al., 2010. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 14, 255-
Bishop, J, et al., 2003. Review of international research literature regarding
281.
the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential
66
Hooper, T. & Austen, M, 2014. Marine Policy, 43, 295-300.
alternatives, Report for DEFRA.
67
34 Christie, N., et al., 2014. Marine Policy, 43, 254-261.
Szewczak, J.M. & Arnett, E.B, 2007. Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative.
68
35 Gill, A.B., et al., 2012. Journal of Fish Biology, 81, 664-695.
Bishop, J, et al., 2003. Central Science Laboratories for DEFRA, London.
69
Petersen, J.K. & Malm, T., 2006. Ambio, 35, 75-80.
[Online]. Available from:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/research/birdscaring/bird
scaring.pdf
36
Cook, A, 2011. BTO Research Report. 580.
37
Langston, R.W. & Pullan, J.D, 2003. Nature and Environment, 139.