Content uploaded by Dirk Oudes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dirk Oudes on Jul 03, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dirk Oudes
LANDSCAPE-INCLUSIVE ENERGY TRANSITION
Propositions
1. The term ‘landscape’ is not needed to make use of the
potential of landscapes.
(this thesis)
2. Solar parks are not parks.
(this thesis)
3. Societal impact increases when society can impact
scientic research.
4. Fieldtrips are indispensable for scientists working on topics
related to landscape.
5. The coffee machine at the home ofce is for productivity,
the coffee machine at the university is for creativity.
6. Professional experience prior to PhD research is both a
blessing and a curse.
Propositions belonging to the thesis, entitled
Landscape-inclusive energy transition: landscape as catalyst
in the shift to renewable energy
Dirk Oudes
Wageningen, 30 June 2022
Dirk Oudes
LANDSCAPE-INCLUSIVE
ENERGY TRANSITION
landscape as catalyst in the shift to renewable energy
Thesis committee
Promotor
Dr S. Stremke
Associate professor Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning (LSP)
Wageningen University & Research
Professor Landscape architecture
Amsterdam Academy of Architecture
Co-promotor (until September 2021)
Prof. Dr A. van den Brink
Emeritus professor Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning (LSP)
Wageningen University & Research
Other members
Prof. Dr E.S. van Leeuwen, Wageningen University & Research
Prof. Dr K. Sherren, Dalhousie University, Canada
Prof. Dr S. Schöbel-Rutschmann, Technical University Munich, Germany
Prof. Dr W.C. Sinke, University of Amsterdam
This research was conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School for
Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).
Thesis
at Wageningen University
Prof. Dr A.P.J. Mol,
in the presence of the
Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board
to be defended in public
on Thursday the 30th of June 2022
at 4 p.m. in the Omnia Auditorium.
Dirk Oudes
LANDSCAPE-INCLUSIVE
ENERGY TRANSITION
landscape as catalyst in the shift to renewable energy
Dirk Oudes
Landscape-inclusive energy transition
landscape as catalyst in the shift to renewable energy
258 pages.
PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands (2022)
With references, with summary in English and Dutch
ISBN: 978-94-6447-148-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18174/566620
Contents
Introduction
Spatial transition analysis: Spatially explicit anvd evidence-
based targets for sustainable energy transition at the local
and regional scale
Climate adaptation, urban regeneration and browneld
reclamation: a literature review on landscape quality in
large-scale transformation projects
Next generation solar power plants?
A comparative analysis of frontrunner solar landscapes in
Europe
Emergent typology of solar power plants: How societal
considerations start to shape renewable energy
landscapes
Discussion and conclusion
References
Appendices
Summary
Samenvatting
Acknowledgments
About the author
7
37
65
91
131
159
189
219
235
243
249
253
Local inhabitants take a walk in the public park next to Embalse de Canales,
Andalucia, Spain. The public park is situated on the dam crest of a hydropower
plant (source: author).
Introduction
Chapter 1
8 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Introduction | 9
Introduction
Energy transition and landscape are often considered as zero-sum
landscape changes invoked by renewable energy provision often
In the years to come, renewable energy will continue to be a key
driver in the change of landscapes where people live, work and
transition landscape is therefore an ‘obstacle’ to be overcome to
ensure energy targets are met. Southill Solar is a demonstration of
the contrary where the ‘obstacle’ landscape became a ‘catalyst’ in
the shift to renewable energy.
Southill Solar Landscape: evidence of socio-
spatial innovation
Northwest of Oxford, United Kingdom, lies the Cotswolds, a
designated area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). This area
is characterized by small 17th century villages and manor houses in
a hilly landscape, consisting of medieval estates and ancient forest
patches. In 2012, the local sustainability cooperative of the village
Charlbury started a campaign to build a community solar power
plant. The cooperative proposed to build on a large linear plot of
grassland that undulates towards the river Evenlode. In the initial
design, most of the site was covered with photovoltaic (PV) arrays
in a low density. This design was rejected on grounds of negative
visual impact on the AONB. The cooperative decided to resubmit
the planning application. To address the issue of visual impact, the
cooperative organized a so-called ‘bring-your-brolly-day’ (brolly is
another term for umbrella). On this day, more than one hundred
local citizens (on a population of less than 3.000) marked various
1
1
1.1
10 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
layouts of the power plant with their umbrellas. Those umbrellas,
note the symbolic association with climate change, represented
the height of the proposed PV panels. Photographs from strategic
locations made it possible to identify the visibility of each of the
The community then decided to reduce the number of panels,
the community. The well-supported, revised plan convinced the
plant are used for various local projects, for example improving
not only consider visual impact, they also aimed to improve the
ecological conditions of the site. Over half of the project site
has been dedicated to improve local biodiversity. The low grade
agricultural land has been improved with nest boxes, a community
The grassland beneath and adjacent to the PV panels have been
Fig. 1.1. Bring your brolly day at Southill Solar in 2014. Local citizens standing
on a line representing a potential layout of the proposed solar power plant
(source: Southill Community Energy).
Introduction | 11
for a variety of animals. Although this solar power plant is not
accessible to the general public, local groups help with removal of
weeds, harvesting and maintenance of the fruit trees and other land
management activities.
Southill Solar is an example of a renewable energy project where
balanced with landscape objectives, such as visibility and habitat
improvement. The participatory approach won the yearly award of
the Landscape Institute (chartered body of landscape profession
in the United Kingdom) in the category local landscape planning
(Landscape Institute, 2015). Today, Southill Solar is still an exception,
in contrast with the mainstream practices of renewable energy
projects. More often than not, landscape is used as an argument for
opposing renewable energy projects and thus seems to represent
an obstacle to the energy transition. This is hardly surprising,
considering many development sites are selected for economic
reasons without understanding the meaning the landscape
1
Fig.1.2. Area providing winter foraging for birds at Southill Solar
(source: author).
12 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
stakeholders through participation is often limited and too late
(Devine-Wright, 2011b). Moreover, the great majority of sites with
planning approval are transformed to monofunctional power
plants with substantial impact on functions and values of landscape
(Selman, 2010).
This thesis therefore explores whether ‘landscape’ can turn from
perceived obstacle into a systemic catalyzer for the 21st century
energy transition. To this end, this thesis aims to identify key tenets
for a landscape inclusive energy transition, for advancing the energy
transition while meeting societal considerations regarding landscape.
Energy transitions and landscape transformation
Southill Solar is representative of the global ambition to shift
from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (IRENA, 2022). In
the last decades, concerns about the global climate have led to
the signing of (inter)governmental agreements and the setting of
national and regional targets for renewable energy. The objective
of the Paris Agreement is to keep global temperature rise below
the increase to 1.5
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are needed to reach these targets
and renewable energy provision provides an important share
targets for a share of 32% renewable energy in 2030 (European
Parliament & European Council, 2018) and with the introduction of
the Green Deal, a target of 55% GHG emission reduction by 2030
was set (European Commission, 2021). In the Netherlands, these
targets led to the signing of the cross-sectoral, national climate
agreement (Klimaatakkoord, 2019). Representatives from the built
environment, industry, mobility, agriculture and land use, and the
electricity sector agreed upon emission reduction targets for 2030.
Emission reduction by means of renewable energy provision is, in
1.2
Introduction | 13
the Netherlands, primarily operationalized on the regional level.
Regional plans for energy provision involve local and provincial
governments, grid operators, water boards, businesses, NGO’s and
energy cooperatives (Pistoni, 2020).
When energy targets are implemented on the regional and local
in how we build our homes, produce our foods, the fuels we use
and how we behave in general. Energy transition therefore is not
merely a technological or economic transition, but has social,
cultural, environmental, political and spatial dimensions as well
2018), explained by the lower power density of renewable energy
sources compared to fossil fuels (Smil, 2010). However, even
countries with high population density such as the Netherlands can
achieve the targets set in the Paris Agreement within the national
borders (Sijmons et al., 2017).
Achieving the energy transition leads to transformations of familiar
Wolsink, 2017). While landscape change is gradual and may even
go unnoticed, transformation of landscape is more immediate and
is a two-fold process. On the one hand, renewable energy
development transforms physical landscape patterns, for example
the hydrological system of a river. On the other hand, renewable
energy development also transforms how landscape users interpret
and experience their environment. For some people, the creation
of the reservoir gives them joy for taking a swim, yet others may
lament the loss of houses due to the construction. These two
1
14 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
the European Landscape Convention: landscape is “an area, as
perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and
interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Council of Europe,
2000, p. 2).
Landscape transformation prompted by energy development is not
limited to the current transition. Throughout history, our energy
demand has transformed existing landscapes and created new
economy, the mineral economy, the electricity economy and the
sustainable economy. In each of these stages the energy demand of
humans actively shapes landscapes, whether it concerns deforested
plants or wind energy landscapes.
landscapes that originate directly from the human development
otherwise, energy landscape in this thesis refers to renewable energy
landscape. The past energy transitions have all led to distinct energy
landscapes, although energy has not always been the singular
driver for landscape transformation. Instead, transformation was
driven by multiple societal needs, for example land reclamation,
peat extraction and urbanization (De Jong & Stremke, 2020).
Thayer, 1994). In this thesis, societal considerations refer to the
interests, values and concerns of local stakeholders and society at
large with regard to landscape transformation. Similar to the past,
the energy transition of the 21st century is interconnected with
concerns such as human well-being, methods of production and
consumption and food security, as expressed by the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. These interconnections illustrate the missed
opportunities to create synergies between energy provision and
other societal challenges, as contemporary energy projects have a
Introduction | 15
The current energy transition is and will continue to take place
in familiar and mundane, ‘lived landscapes’ (Sherren, 2021). The
term ‘lived landscapes’ refers to the places where people reside,
work and move as part of their everyday lives. These landscapes
areas with high population density, the implications of landscape
transformation caused by the energy transition may therefore
be severe (Bridge et al., 2013). As a result, the energy transition
negotiated between stakeholders such as inhabitants, decision-
Environmental disciplines such as landscape architecture, urban
design, and spatial planning play an active role in shaping energy
In environmental planning and design processes, stakeholders can
the landscape and allows them to imagine, negotiate and decide
about landscape transformation (Nassauer, 2012). Planning and
design ranges from strategic ‘conversations’ with stakeholders on
the energy transition on a regional level (Kempenaar, Puerari, Pleijte,
& van Buuren, 2021) all the way to operational site design involving
local stakeholders (Picchi, van Lierop, Geneletti, & Stremke, 2019).
Landscape as perceived obstacle to energy
transition
The landscape transformation driven by energy transition does
key arena for the energy transition where the interests, values and
van der Horst, 2010). This arena encompasses diverse stakeholders:
1
1.3
16 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
local inhabitants, energy cooperatives, NGOs, industry, grid
operators, policy makers, decision makers and researchers. Many
of these agents disregard or have a limited view on the concept
of landscape. As a result, landscape is perceived as an ‘obstacle’
that needs to be overcome to meet renewable energy targets
and mitigate climate change. The following sub-sections address
the disregard of ‘landscape’ as well as two conventional views on
the lived landscapes.
Disregarding landscape
selecting sites and designing renewable energy projects. Instead,
the focus lies on technical and economic considerations such as
by local or supra-local governments too often disregard landscape,
leading to development of energy projects without local support
(Prados, 2010). Site selection for renewable energy development
is mainly informed by energy potential and transportation costs
while landscape considerations are largely absent (Bosch &
because existing urban or industrial developments make it easier
communities are targeted more than those of others (Balta-
Ozkan, Watson, & Mocca, 2015). In the short or medium term,
these opportunistic site selections may become problematic for
the continuity of the energy transition as these ‘easy’ sites become
the suitability of other sites or alternative technologies, makes it
1.3.1
Introduction | 17
to terms with the planning approval of a renewable energy project
(Roddis et al., 2020).
Disregarding ‘landscape’ also leads to implementation of single-
purpose renewable energy projects that are optimized for electricity
production. These projects lack attention for physical characteristics
of landscape, as well as how stakeholders interpret and experience
of disregarding ‘landscape’ in renewable energy projects are, for
example, fragmentation of the countryside (Chiabrando, Fabrizio,
& Garnero, 2009), a loss of cultural heritage (Scognamiglio, 2016),
a loss of space used for exercise and relaxation (Roddis et al.,
2020), adverse impact on the aesthetic appreciation of the living
Vidal, & Pastor, 2018), decreasing place attachment and initiating a
& Hackett, 2016).
The disregard of ‘landscape’ may ultimately lead to the rejection
of planning applications because the use and appreciation of
landscape by local stakeholders has been neglected by developers
Considering landscape as ‘scenery’
of renewable energy projects, it is often considered as ‘scenery’
proposed energy technology, separating landscape and technology
instead of considering them together as ‘complete landscape’ (Bevk
If landscape is considered as ‘scenery’ exclusively, proposals
infrastructure on particular viewsheds (Salak, Lindberg, Kienast,
& Hunziker, 2021). Outcomes of such assessments are not
seldom resulting in the rejection of proposals or taking site-level
interventions that focus on reducing visibility without considering
1
1.3.2
18 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Merida-Rodriguez, Lobon-Martin, & Perles-Rosello, 2015). With
regard to the latter, Solarfeld Gänsdorf (Germany) is an example
where an atypical hedgerow structure was introduced to reduce
the visibility of the solar power plant. Although this intervention
original, open agricultural landscape.
Moreover, recent studies refute the presumption that visibility
of energy infrastructure is always perceived negatively (Firestone
existing energy infrastructure is actually a strong predictor
of support for renewable energy (Sherren, Parkins, Owen, &
Terashima, 2019).
Furthermore, landscape as ‘scenery’ reduces the relationship
individuals have with their landscape to a singular – visual –
phenomenon whereas landscape experience also comprises smell,
touch, taste and hearing (Van Etteger, 2016). As ‘scenery’, landscape
is mainly understood as a phenomenon that is visually perceived,
yet this disregards the psychological bond people develop over
time with a landscape, described as ‘place attachment’ (Scannell
opposition of local stakeholders to landscape change (Devine-
Wright, 2013), although studies also point to stakeholders
becoming accustomed to landscape change over time (Sherren et
al., 2016).
The overemphasis on the visual aspect of landscape in the energy
from the exploitation of renewable energy is directly opposed by
who’s landscape it is, what landscape values are considered and
how they are weighed (Bridge et al., 2013), but certainly point to a
wider balancing of values than purely visual values (Van der Horst
Introduction | 19
evaluations of ‘insiders’, people native to the landscape, and
Horst & Vermeylen, 2011). ‘Insiders’ often emphasize functional
aspects of landscape, while ‘outsiders’ often emphasize experiential
aspects of landscape (Van der Horst & Vermeylen, 2011). Pursuing
place attachment as well as members of the broader community” to
be invested in planning and design processes (Wolsink, 2017, p. 16).
Considering landscape to be in a ‘stable state’
a stable-state. This presupposes a sense of landscape permanence:
the expectations of people that their landscape remains the same,
followed by the threatening feeling when landscape change occurs
in a ‘stable state’ relates to a more general attitude of our time –
philosopher Roman Krznaric calls this the ‘tyranny of the now’ – the
focus on the present at the expense of thinking about the future
(Krznaric, 2021).
Looking back in the history of landscapes makes clear that
landscapes change continuously, and that landscape permanence
is an illusion. To illustrate, the Veluwe is now one of Europe’s largest
continuous nature areas, located at the center of the Netherlands.
In 2016, the Veluwe was runner-up in the public election for the
‘most beautiful nature area’ in the Netherlands. Throughout history,
society’s changing agricultural, industrial, energy and recreational
needs (for more detailed information please see textbox 1.1).
Still, the belief that the present landscape is in a stable, optimum
state that needs to be conserved and protected against change
succession in a plant community ultimately leads to a stable state:
1
1.3.3
20 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
challenge proposed changes in our landscapes (Linnerud, Toney,
Simonsen, & Holden, 2019).
The challenge of climax thinking is further explained by prospect
theory, which states that people are systematically biased against
change, because they tend to prefer avoiding losses compared to
projects – according to this theory – people will give more weight
to the negative aspects than to the positive aspects. As a result, the
the reference point for any potential change.
available areas for renewable energy provision. The result of climax
thinking is that challenges of today – such as the energy transition
– are pushed to communities living somewhere else or in the future
(Sherren, 2021).
Paradoxically, renewable energy developments are often wrapped
in the promise of temporality (Windemer, 2019). The end-of-life
stage of renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines
and PV panels, is often reached in 20-30 years. This fact is used
by developers and/or governments to frame renewable energy
projects as temporary without explicitly stating what will happen
in the landscape once the end-of-life of the energy technology is
reached. This is problematic because the temporal character of
energy infrastructure could be repowered or even left alone,
creating sites with derelict energy infrastructure (Windemer &
Cowell, 2021).
In much of todays’ energy transition discourse, landscape is either
disregarded or commonly understood as a scenery in a stable-state
that is negatively impacted by renewable energy infrastructure.
This limited ‘conventional understanding’ of landscape can be
scale (e.g. the Dutch energy agreement, see Sociaal-Economische
Introduction | 21
Raad, 2013), to the mapping of energy potentials (e.g. Borgogno
Martin, 2018) and the articulation of energy policies (e.g. cost-
This situation leads to the somewhat prominent conception that
landscape forms an ‘obstacle’ for the continuity of the energy
transition. Landscape and the energy transition are predominantly
considered as separate entities. Landscape – in the conventional
understanding – only becomes part of the discussion when
1
Textbox 1.1. Landscape dynamics of the Veluwe
The Veluwe is one of Europe’s largest continuous nature areas, located at
the center of the Netherlands. This push moraine complex is characterized
by forest, heath and sand drift areas. In 2016 the Veluwe was runner-up in
the election for the most beautiful nature area in the Netherlands. However,
most voters might not be aware that the Veluwe actually has a long
history of agricultural and industrial use that have caused this landscape
to change dramatically through the centuries. In pre-historic times the
Veluwe was an area with one of the highest population densities of the
Netherlands. Multiple cycles of over-exploitation, population decline and
re-cultivation changed the appearance of the Veluwe as a largely forested
area and relatively open heath landscape. The industrial use of the Veluwe
is evidenced by over 200 watermills that were located in the edges of the
Veluwe, making use of the elevation dierence. The water mills were used
for processing copper and wool and producing paper. In addition, wood
was processed in kilns to produce charcoal for harvesting iron ore that
was found in the loam layers. At the start of the 20th century the ‘wild’ and
uncultivated appearance of the Veluwe was qualied as ‘despicable’ by train
travelers who could perceive the Veluwe on their journeys. This changed
when people started to appreciate the ‘unspoiled’ life outside the city and
areas such as the Veluwe were romanticized by painters and writers. Hotels,
pensions and sanatoria emerged at the Veluwe. Currently the Veluwe is an
22 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
The dormant potential of landscape
In contrast to this conventional, limited understanding of landscape,
scholars point to the potential of landscape as an integrative concept
where “nature and culture, science and aesthetics, geography
and history, humans and their environment at all scales and in all
aspects meet” (Antrop & Van Eetvelde, 2017, p. 4). This integrative
and human perspectives in a particular geographical setting
of landscape transformation, this means that natural drivers on the
one hand, and social-economic and cultural drivers on the other
negotiation, stakeholders can express their expectations for the
& van der Horst, 2010). The outcome of such a process may lead
of “novelty and experimentation” (Bridge et al., 2013, p. 336).
Exploring the dormant potential of landscape
This dormant potential of landscape calls for a further exploration.
As concept, ‘landscape’ has been in use for over 800 years and is
landscape from the European Landscape Convention (p. 5) is widely
1.4.1
important part of the Dutch ecological network: wildlife corridors have been
constructed to provide connections across the highways, agricultural land
has been redeveloped as nature areas and an industrial business park has
been decommissioned to improve the connection between the Veluwe and
uvial plains of the river Rhine (Neefjes & Bleumink, 2021).
1.4
Introduction | 23
used amongst these disciplines and clearly illustrates the duality
of the concept: landscape includes both the meaning of ‘land’ or
‘area’ (object) as well as the interpretation and experience of that
as object, or physical construct, is shaped by natural processes
and human activity. Biophysical characteristics such as substrate
composition determine, for example, the location of geothermal
reservoirs. Humans decide to drill the wells and build the power
plants to convert the hot steam into electrical energy. Landscape
is thus the “interface where nature and culture come together so
obviously” (De Jonge, 2009, p. 43). Landscape as subject is a social
interpretation and experience is not only dependent on their
bodily movement, but also on social-cultural factors (e.g. education,
norms, beliefs) which, in turn, explains why landscape users attach
or explicitly, become part of planning regulations and laws (Bridge
et al., 2013).
The interactions between natural processes and human activities
2001). Although societal needs have always shaped landscapes,
urbanization, climate adaptation and mitigation replaces gradual
al., 2013).
Even without changes in the physical landscape, interpretation and
Tress & Tress, 2001). In general, however, the ‘social production
change (Selman, 2010). This changing interpretation of landscape
was illustrated by the Veluwe (textbox 1.1) and many other
1
24 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
threatening ‘wild’ land, yet later reinterpreted as ‘unspoiled’ land,
Recognizing the potential of landscape for the energy transition
Discourse on landscape took place long before the energy transition
was recognized as the driver of landscape transformation that it is
recognized in academia and society. This relevance of ‘landscape’
for the energy transition, for example, gave rise to a multi-year EU
funded collaboration between science and technology (COST action).
Over 200 participants from 37 European countries collaborated in
et al., 2018).
In the Netherlands, the negotiations for the national climate
agreement were supported by landscape experts and designers.
to concepts such as multifunctional land use and landscape
character (Klimaatakkoord, 2019). The Dutch energy sector is also
energy transition. To illustrate, the solar energy industry association
‘Holland Solar’ took the initiative to develop a code of conduct,
which was co-signed by multiple landscape NGOs. This code of
conduct explicitly acknowledges the value of landscape (Holland
Solar, 2019). Moreover, it states to not only preserve existing but
parties, developers, NGOs, governments, designers, consultants
and researchers have resulted in a ‘national consortium’ that aims
Landschap, 2022). Provincial and regional governments – another
key agent in the transition – are developing guidelines that aim
to help developers, local governments and designers to take
renewable energy projects (Van Vuurde et al., 2019). Local
1.4.2
Introduction | 25
governments too, for example the municipality of Wageningen,
power plants (LoS Stadomland, 2020).
These developments make clear that stakeholders in the energy
transition, particularly inhabitants, governments, cultural and
environmental NGO’s as well as other landscape users, have become
aware of the current disregard of landscape in the energy transition
discourse. Through research, code of conducts, policies and
guidelines, and local debates, these stakeholders stress the need to
feature ‘landscape’ more prominently in the energy transition. They
propose and, at times demand that their considerations are taken
into account during the planning and design of energy landscapes.
and appearance of energy landscapes, for example the spatial
extent of projects, the choice of wind turbines, the distance between
PV arrays and the design of biogas or geothermal power plants.
Thus, depending on the considerations deemed relevant by
decision makers in a certain place and time, physical landscapes
emerge that are not merely optimized according to technological or
Horst, 2010). Including landscape in the energy transition discourse
– according to Paul Selman’s paper entitled Learning to love the
landscapes of carbon-neutrality – can “display placeness and tell a
story of human ingenuity, adaptation and wisdom that is intrinsically
worthy of pride” (Selman, 2010).
1
26 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Textbox 1.2. Alternatives to ‘landscape’?
Landscape, admittedly, is a complex concept and this might raise the
question if the concept should not be abandoned altogether, in favor of
other terms that are better equipped to address the implications of the
energy transition to people’s surroundings.
Space for example, is a term that is often used interchangeably with
landscape, especially in the context of ‘spatial impact’ or ‘spatial dimensions’
of the energy transition. Used like this illustrates the rather abstract
meaning of space. Bridge et al. (2013) for example, ‘unpack’ the spatiality
of the energy transition, amongst others, using the word landscape. Some
disciplines use space primarily quantitative, which makes it a useful concept
to compare spatial footprints of dierent energy technologies and illustrate
the scale of the energy transition.
In line, Tuan (1977) argues that space is rather abstract and focuses on
the physical surroundings, while place focuses on the meanings associated
with space and is therefore human centered and personal (Tuan, 1977).
Although place highlights the personal attachments of people to their
surroundings, it has less emphasis on the natural and cultural, physical
characteristics.
Environment is often used in a similarly abstract way, usually referring to
the natural environment but is also used in other ways, for example social
environment or neighborhood environment. Either way, environment refers
to everything around an organism (e.g. human or plant) and usually does
not convey the meanings that organism attaches to the environment.
Another candidate term is land, which is a closely related term that points
towards a piece of terrain that is owned by someone (Antrop & Van
Eetvelde, 2017). Land is thus relevant for the energy transition, because
ownership of land is an important aspect in decision-making. However,
‘land’ largely lacks qualitative notions: “you can ask of land how much there
is, but not what it is like” (Ingold, 1993, p. 153).
Territory it etymologically linked to land (‘terra’ means ‘land’) and refers to a
delimited area governed by political or social power (Antrop & Van Eetvelde,
2017; Bridge et al., 2013). This is a useful term in the energy transition,
because what happens in a territory is often governed by multiple levels
of power (e.g. EU legislation and municipal laws). However, similar to land,
the English term territory hardly conveys the interpretation and experience
of individuals and groups of their surroundings. In other words, “interest
groups dealing with the same territory of land see dierent landscapes.”
(Antrop & Van Eetvelde, 2017, p. 41).
Introduction | 27
Towards more inclusion of landscape in the
energy transition - knowledge gaps and
research aim
The concept of landscape thus encompasses much more than how
it is currently used in much of the energy transition discourse. The
limited, conventional understanding of landscape disrupts the
continuity of the transition and
As a result, both scholars and society at large start to call for an
energy transition that includes ‘landscape’ more prominently in the
developing energy policies.
Existing research on landscape and renewable energy has been
Rodriguez, 2012) and high-voltage powerlines (e.g. Devine-Wright &
Batel, 2013). Ground-mounted solar power plants, on the contrary,
are a relatively new phenomenon and their interaction with
landscape presents a rather unchartered research territory. The
construction of solar power plants (SPP) has increased over the past
decade (Comello, Reichelstein, & Sahoo, 2018). Discussions revolve
around land use competition as well as environmental and visual
impacts, which has started to give rise to dedicated SPP research
aims to contribute to this growing body of knowledge on solar
power plants with a particular attention for landscape. In line with
the depicted problems (section 1.3) and dormant potentials (section
1
1.5
28 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
achieve objectives in addition to electricity production such as food
Scognamiglio, 2016). Recent studies point in general terms to a
range of multi-purpose solar power plants, yet lack the level of detail
the potential of multi-purpose energy landscapes, a comprehensive
typology of solar power plants is missing that can provide directions
for an evidence based and transparent processes, from location
The second knowledge gap concerns the spatial properties of so-
called ‘solar landscapes’. While a solar power plant can have multiple
purposes, key to the concept of ‘solar landscapes’ is the “design
of solar power plants as landscape” (Scognamiglio, 2016, p. 638).
or recreation functions in relationship to characteristics of the
existing landscape, or creating new, distinct patterns. The concept
of ‘solar landscape’ connects back with Sylvia Crowe who in the
1950s started to argue for designing ‘complete landscapes’, instead
of mitigating inertia between technology and landscape (Crowe,
1958, p. 24). Some studies have presented single, theoretical cases
few studies that systematically examine the spatial properties of
constructed solar landscapes.
The third knowledge gap relates to a more encompassing view on
landscape transformation. Existing literature focuses mainly on
visual impact mitigation of renewable energy technologies (Apostol,
Introduction | 29
landscape is more than just ‘scenery’: attention for visual perception
needs to be complemented with a wider set of functional,
experiential and temporal aspects of landscape transformation
to the considerations of (a certain group of) stakeholders (Antrop &
comprises functional, experiential and future aspects (Busscher,
F. Klijn, de Bruin, de Hoog, Jansen, & Sijmons, 2013). Although
experiential aspects have been studied to some degree in the
design of landscape transformations, it is unclear how functional,
experiential and future aspects of landscape quality can be addressed
in the energy transition.
Finally, the fourth knowledge gap concerns the disregard of
often set without landscape knowledge and without stakeholders
involvement (Prados, 2010). Energy potential mapping can inform
(Borgogno Mondino et al., 2015) or a single aspect of landscape
(e.g. visbility, Fernandez-Jimenez et al., 2015) and input data is
limited to topographical, climatological and legislative data. There
exists a clear knowledge gap on how to include local landscape
knowledge and societal considerations
energy targets.
Existing studies primarily focus on energy technologies instead
of energy landscapes: technology and landscape are commonly
designing ‘complete landscapes’ as postulated above are still rare.
While other scholars too advocate this, they have so far remained
1
30 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
and developing energy policies. This overall knowledge gap points
to the need for what is in this PhD thesis referred to as landscape
inclusive energy transition: an energy transition that embraces a
comprehensive understanding of landscape beyond ‘scenery’ and
transition, it is unclear whether and how landscape can turn from
a perceived obstacle into a systemic catalyzer for the 21st century
energy transition.
This thesis therefore aims to identify key tenets for a landscape
inclusive energy transition, for advancing the energy transition while
meeting societal considerations regarding landscape. The use of the
term tenets implies that this PhD thesis does not aspire to articulate
fully established axioms or undisputable dogmas. Rather, this thesis
provides new knowledge and directions for continued innovation in
research, policy and practice, towards a more landscape inclusive
energy transition.
To this end, this thesis is guided by the following four research
Please note, the knowledge gaps (p. 13-14) related to the research
1. How can spatially explicit, evidence-based and stakeholder-
2.
transformation projects and what is the role of design,
3. What are the visual, functional and temporal properties of
4. Which societal considerations materialize in Solar Power Plants
Introduction | 31
Worldview
This thesis is built upon a pragmatic worldview. This worldview
acknowledges the existence of both a ‘real’ world and a ‘socially
constructed’ world (Crotty, 1998) and its proponents are concerned
with ‘what works’ and real-world problem solving (Creswell, 2009).
and design research that deals with complex problems and the
variety of interests involved with landscape (Lenzholzer, Duchhart,
& van den Brink, 2017).
Mixed methods
On the level of this thesis, I use a mixed methods strategy that
methods for each chapter are summarized below.
reviewed and grey literature, project documentation, and
geographic data, such as topographical maps, satellite imagery and
wind speed maps. In addition, expert input, stakeholder input and
During the timespan of this PhD thesis, my own observations while
conversations with policy and decision makers, energy experts and
local inhabitants during workshops or lectures have helped me to
understand the larger societal context of the energy transtion. In a
modules and to compose both the introduction and discussion of
this PhD thesis.
Research design 1.6 1
1.6.1
1.6.2
32 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
knowledge and societal considerations was investigated using the
single case study of Parkstad Limburg, a region in the south of the
Netherlands. This case was selected because policy makers of this
Furthermore, geographic data was available for the whole region
and civil servants and aldermen of the municipalities were willing
to participate in the research project by means of interviews and
questionnaire. Energy potential mapping served as an input to
scenarios and determine year of energy neutrality. A full description
of the methodological framework can be found in chapter 2.2.
transformation projects are analyzed using a systematic review of
of an email questionnaire to experts. Peer-reviewed and grey
literature were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis
& Bergström, 2017). A full description of the methods can be found
in chapter 3.2.
In chapter 4, a comparative analysis of multiple embedded cases
of solar landscapes is used to identify their visual, functional and
temporal properties (Yin, 2009). Expert consultation was used
to identify cases. For each of the cases, a spatial analysis (Frankl,
document analysis of project
documentation was conducted. Field observations were used to
verify the results of the spatial analysis. Individual case analysis were
2009). A full description of the methods can be found in chapter 4.2.
Chapter 5 uses a literature review to identify the key societal
considerations with regard to solar power plants. For the delineation
of the typology, this chapter makes use of the same dataset of
chapter 4, supplemented with additional cases. These additional
cases are analyzed similar to the comparative case analysis of chapter
4. Multiple iterations of cross-case comparison and individual case
Introduction | 33
questionnaire to case informants and expert interviews was used to
inform these iterations and further supplement and elaborate the
typology. A full description of the used methods can be found in
chapter 5.2.
Research quality
throughout the thesis. To start, methods such as energy potential
mapping, systematic review and comparative case-analysis are
data management strategies were put in place in the early stages
structures, distinctions between raw and processed data and
building templates to collect, organize and process data.
Furthermore, energy landscapes are often not (yet) captured
in comprehensive databases or geographic datasets that allow
convenient comparison and selection of cases based upon certain
accomplished by collaborating with a diverse set of experts and
extensive desk-studies (chapter 3, 4 and 5).
For the embedded case studies, a case study protocol was
developed and used to instruct the involved researchers and to
ensure consistency and reliability of the individual case analysis.
Similarly, an interview protocol was devised for the expert interviews
in chapter 5, in collaboration with a methodological expert.
Data triangulation was used in the case studies to ensure the
validity of the spatial analysis of solar power plants. Initial analysis
was done using both satellite imagery and project documentation
conversations with the involved designer, developer or civil servant,
because they supplied the project documentation or provided
access to the site. Data analysis for each of the chapters involved
1
1.6.3
34 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
one or more workshops that included the involved researchers and
a knowledgeable colleague not involved in the actual research.
basis to both professional and academic audiences. These
Finally, in addition to informal peer review, each of the following
chapters (except the discussion and conclusion) has been submitted
rigorous peer review. The feedback of the reviewers have helped to
improve the structure of the papers, the clarity of writing and the
of the respective chapter. Chapter 5 has been – at the moment of
writing – invited for resubmission following major revisions with
another Q1 journal.
Structure of the thesis
Following this introduction to the PhD thesis – chapter 2 presents an
methodological framework to dene energy targets including local
landscape knowledge and stakeholder considerations. In chapter 3,
the literature on three large-scale landscape transformation projects
is systematically analyzed to understand how functional, experiential
and future aspects of landscape quality can be addressed in the
energy transition. Chapter 4 comprises a comparative analysis of 11
frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe and systematically examines
the visual, functional and temporal properties of solar landscapes.
Chapter 5 presents a typology of multi-purpose solar power plants
that can provide directions for an evidence based and transparent
tenets for a landscape inclusive energy transition.
1.7
Introduction | 35
1
The village Vijlen, just south of the region Parkstad Limburg, with windturbines
located in Germany in the background (source: author).
Chapter 2
Spatial transition analysis: Spatially
explicit and evidence-based targets
for sustainable energy transition at
the local and regional scale
Dirk Oudes
Sven Stremke
Landscape and Urban Planning 169, 1-11. 2018
38 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Abstract
Climate change, depletion of fossil fuels, and economic concerns
are among the main drivers of sustainable energy transition. Over
the past decade, several regions with low population density have
successfully transited towards renewable energy (for example
Siena, Italy). In the Netherlands and other countries, more densely
populated regions have drawn up ambitious targets for energy
transition. Most of these transition targets lack empirical evidence
with regard to spatio-technological feasibility. This lack of evidence
may compromise energy transition if constraints are discovered
posteriori and short-term milestones missed. To address this
shortcoming, we propose an integrated approach. Spatial Transition
for the siting of renewable energy technologies and comparative
scenario development. The application of STA in a case-study
(Parkstad Limburg, the Netherlands) revealed that the region has
the potential to become energy neutral between 2035 and 2045.
as the possible choices between renewable energy technologies
enabled stakeholders to start planning for energy transition and
solid framework to foster sustainable energy transition initiated by
regional stakeholders and informed by local preferences.
Spatial transition analysis | 39
2.1Introduction
Climate change, depletion of fossil fuels and concerns about local
economies are among the main drivers of sustainable energy
transition (Bridge et al., 2013). This transition is not limited
to the transformation of energy infrastructure, but involves
transformations of “the broader social and economic assemblages
that are built around energy production and consumption” (Miller
et al., 2013, p. 135) and is being increasingly studied by social
scientists, geographers, spatial planners, landscape architects and
van den Dobbelsteen, 2013). The part of the physical environment
Vermeylen, 2011). In line with the European Landscape Convention,
landscape refers to “an area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/
or human factors” (Council of Europe, 2000, p. 2).
In Europe, several regions have successfully transitioned towards
renewable energy, for example Siena, Italy (Casprini, 2013) and
low population density. In the Netherlands and other countries,
for energy transition, within a relatively short period of time.
Examples in the Netherlands are Stedendriehoek (Pijlman &
Bosman, 2014) and the cities Utrecht (Gemeente Utrecht, 2011)
and Groningen (Gemeente Groningen, 2008) aiming to achieve
100% energy or carbon neutrality by 2030 or even 2025. Energy
neutrality refers to “the extent to which a district […] can supply
itself with sustainable energy generated within the boundaries
of that district” (Jablonska et al., 2011, p. 1). Regions are often
unaware whether spatial characteristics of the region are suitable
to achieve energy neutrality (e.g. “Energietransitienota Duurzame
transition targets are often based on little evidence regarding
2
40 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
technological feasibility. Furthermore, many targets are conceived
without involving stakeholders. Considerations of stakeholders with
regard to the way the energy transition should take place are not
taken into account. Such bold and superimposed transition targets
may compromise energy transition if constraints are discovered
posteriori and short-term milestones are missed. To illustrate, the
target of the municipality Groningen (the Netherlands) has already
been adjusted from 2025 to 2035 (Gemeente Groningen, 2011).
and to take action was stressed again by the 2015 Paris Climate
Agreement. In the Netherlands, the Dutch NGO Urgenda, together
against the Dutch government (Urgenda, 2015). Energy transition
has become a key challenge and (inter)national agreements need to
be turned into regional and local targets.
To the best knowledge of the authors of this paper, no
transition targets that are spatially explicit, evidence-based, and
of this paper is, therefore, to close this knowledge gap, to present
and discuss an integrated approach – Spatial Transition Analysis
energy transition. To address the shortcomings of current practice,
STA ought to be spatially explicit, evidence-based with regard to
renewable energy technologies (RET), and inclusive of stakeholder
values and preferences.
Several concepts, methods and approaches have provided building
blocks for the research presented in this paper. Departing from
the concept of ‘energy landscape’, (Stremke, 2015) introduced a
conceptual framework for the planning and design of sustainable
energy transition. He stresses that four dimensions (or types)
of criteria should be addressed in the planning and design of
sustainable energy landscapes, namely environmental, socio-
cultural, economic and technical criteria. This typology will be
revisited later in the paper.
Spatial transition analysis | 41
for energy landscape research. This method is used to map
Broersma, & Stremke, 2011). Wang, Mwirigi M’Ikiugu, and Kinoshita
(2014) include biophysical and technical constraints that adversely
regard to renewable energy technologies – another key constraint
– is missing however.
Strategic planning and design provided the theoretical foundations
of the research presented in this paper (see for example Albrechts,
2004). The Five Step Approach is a methodological framework
for strategic design that has been applied to envision regional
energy landscapes (Stremke, Koh, Neven, & Boekel, 2012). For this,
three modes of change, namely current projected trends, critical
uncertainties and intended change are integrated in a design
process that explores alternative pathways for the realization of
transition targets (Stremke, van Kann, & Koh, 2012). In this paper
the focus is on how such targets can be determined.
(for example A. Grêt-Regamey & Wissen-Hayek, 2013) are complex
alternative interventions explored.
For the research presented here, literature studies and a case
study (Yin, 2009) have been conducted. Insights from other
closely related projects in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria
and Denmark have been incorporated (for example De Waal
& Stremke, 2014). A case study was carried out in the Parkstad
Limburg region (The Netherlands). The area selected consists of an
The research process was iterative in character and conducted in
close collaboration with the regional and local initiators of energy
transition as well as other stakeholders.
2
42 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
2.2.1
2.2
The second section of this paper delineates the methodological
section illustrates these steps making use of materials and results
from the Parkstad Limburg Energy Transition (PALET) project.
Finally, the approach and the results are discussed in section four
Methodological framework for spatial transition
analysis (STA)
overall methodological framework and the links between the
and output of each of the seven STA steps are addressed in the
following sub-sections.
Interviews
One of the aims of conducting interviews with local stakeholders
is to gather spatially explicit data on potentials, constraints and
the existing supply of renewable energy sources. Another aim is
to collect information on stakeholder preference and aversion
regarding RET. The output may consist of local (GIS) data, municipal
development plans, annotated topographical maps as well as
documents listing preference and aversion to RET.
Questionnaire
certain criteria for sustainable energy transition, as perceived by
the stakeholders. Their preferences are operationalized in Step
Four and inform the scenario development in Step Six. Departing
from a long-list of 40+ sustainability criteria (Stremke, 2015),
sixteen criteria applicable for energy transition in Parkstad Limburg
2.2.2
Spatial transition analysis | 43
Conceptual framework
Datamining
Energy target
interviews
energy
consumption
energy savings
questionnaire
operationalization of
stakeholder preferences
presentation
and discussion
presentation
and discussion
presentation
and discussion
energy potential mapping
scenario development
step
Legend
related activity
input
result
year of energy neutrality
selection of renewable
energy sources and
technologies
dimensions with criteria for a
sustainable energy landscape
data (e.g. land use,
topography, potentials on
renewable energy and future
effi ciencies of technologies)
data mining & collecting
preferences and constraints on
renewable energy
discovering signifi cance of
certain criteria
as perceived by stakeholders
translating criteria in spatially
explicit considerations
energy potential map for each
selected renewable energy
source
reference and desired scenario
informed by stakeholder
preferences
description
beyond scope of
this paper
join results from energy
consumption, savings and
generation
1
2 3
4
5
#
6
7
including current and future
effi ciencies
civil servants and aldermen from the eight municipalities and the
regional government. They were asked to rate each criterion on a
scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (important).
Selection of renewable energy sources and technologies
The aim of Step Three is to determine potential renewable
energy sources and technologies for the transition. In order to
develop a robust energy system, multiple sources and alternative
technologies for each source are to be included (Stremke & Koh,
data on renewable energy potentials of these technologies must
be available.
2.2.3
2
Fig. 2.1. Methodological framework for Spatial Transition Analysis (STA),
revealing the sequence of and links between the seven steps needed to
dene energy transition targets.
44 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
2.2.4
For PALET, a preliminary analysis of existing data on renewable
energy sources was conducted and proven technologies listed.
For example, the number of solar hours per year and spatial data
on building typology to determine the potential of photovoltaic
sources and technologies was made in collaboration with technology
experts and key stakeholders. Data and spatial information were
included in the mapping study (Step Five). Current and expected
literature available. The output of Step Three is a list of technologies
Operationalization of stakeholder preferences
criteria, making them spatially explicit. The conceptual framework
for the development of sustainable energy landscapes can help
prioritized by stakeholders in collaboration with experts. In order
to develop a sustainable energy landscape and prevent land use
competition, stakeholders might want to limit the area made
available for PV farms. Data used in completing this step is the result
well as notes from discussions and literature. The output is a list of
spatially explicit considerations to be used as input for the process
of mapping energy potential (Step Five) and scenario development
(Step Six). An example is presented in Section 3.4.
Energy potential mapping
The aim of Step Five is to map renewable energy potentials
categories. In PALET, these included residential area, public services,
commercial services as well as areas being used for industry and
transport, for example. Using the GIS software ArcGIS, each potential
GIS datasets may contain general topographical information about
2.2.5
Spatial transition analysis | 45
e.g. competition
energy & food
production
e.g. removal
technology at
end of life cycle
e.g. landscape
experience
e.g.
affordable energy
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
S
o
c
i
o
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
minimum
technical
criteria
land use and relief for example and constraints to renewable energy
technologies, such as soil protection areas and Natura 2000 areas.
Additional data, such as the locations of fallow land and sound
barriers, came from the interviews (Step One). Data on numerical
potentials of renewable sources, for example, solar irradiation and
wind speed 100 m above ground level were inserted into the GIS.
The output of Step Five is a GIS model and a map for each renewable
and constraints of the preselected energy technologies.
Scenario development
The aim of Step Six is to compute the potential for renewable
energy generation in petajoules (PJ) and to indicate the relative
a ‘reference scenario’ which incorporates technical constraints only
and a ‘desired scenario’ based on stakeholder preferences and
reference, which is the maximum technical potential for renewable
energy generation (Blaschke, Biberacher, Gadocha, & Schardinger,
preferences and provides a realistic image of renewable
2.2.6
2
Fig. 2.2. Conceptual framework for the planning and design of sustainable
energy landscapes (Stremke, 2015).
46 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
energy potentials. Information from interviews (Step One) and
(Step Four) make the input for scenario development.
potentials and constraints of each selected RET. They provided the
basis for the creation of the scenarios and calculations. Spreadsheet
software (Microsoft Excel) was used to organize and calculate the
amount of renewable energy provision. The output of Step Six is
an overview of renewable energy provision organized by source
textual description, bar charts and infographics.
Year of energy neutrality
The aim of Step Seven is to link the results of the renewable
energy study (as presented in this paper) with the current energy
consumption and potential energy savings. Together, they make
it possible to determine the possible year of energy neutrality.
ranging from one or two years for solar panels up to ten years for
large wind parks in the Netherlands (Hekkenberg & Lensink, 2013).
Taking this into account, an s-curve that is typical for technology
applied in PALET to estimate the year of energy neutrality. When
local renewable energy provision exceeds local energy consumption,
energy neutrality is achieved. Data used in this step are the results
from Step Six (desired scenario) and from the energy savings study.
The outcome of Step Seven is an indication of the potential year of
energy neutrality for a study area.
2.2.7
Spatial transition analysis | 47
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
ONDERBANKEN
THE NETHERLANDS
BELGIUM
GERMANY
BRUNSSUM
HEERLEN
KERKRADE
LANDGRAAF
VOERENDAAL
MAASTRICHT
AACHEN
NUTH
SIMPELVELD
THE NETHERLANDS
NORTH SEA
BELGIUM
FRANCE
GERMANY
LUXEMBOURG
N
2
Fig. 2.3. Conceptual visualization of the dierences between ‘reference
scenario’ (left) and ‘desired scenario’ (right). In this gure the plus symbol
represents the potential area for renewable energy, while the minus
symbol represents the constraints. In the ‘reference scenario’ only technical
constraints are incorporated, while the ‘desired scenario’ shows the eects
of stakeholder preferences and provides a more realistic image of renewable
energy potentials.
Fig. 2.4. Geographical location of Parkstad Limburg in the south of the
Netherlands (above left) and map of the eight municipalities that together
constitute the region.
48 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
2.3 Case study Parkstad Limburg
Our case study – Parkstad Limburg – is a region in the south of
It has a surface area of 211 km2 and some 255.000 inhabitants
(1208 inhabitants/km2). Compared to the rest of the Netherlands,
it has an atypical landscape, consisting of large plateaus and wide
river valleys. Parkstad Limburg is experiencing demographic
shrinkage (CBS, 2010) and declining employment opportunities
(CBS, 2009). The PALET project was commissioned by the regional
the current energy demand and potential energy savings, H+N+S
landscape architects coordinated the project, while the authors
of this paper examined the renewable energy potentials. A group
of representatives from the municipal and regional authorities
key elements of successful transitions (Loorbach & Rotmans, 2010),
the project contributed to the creation of a transition arena, as well
as to the establishment of a shared transition agenda in Parkstad
Limburg. Note that implementation and monitoring are part of
ongoing follow-up projects that are beyond the scope of this paper.
Section Three illustrates the application of STA in the Parkstad Limburg
Two. Solar energy technologies that convert solar irradiation into
electricity and heat are used to exemplify the STA approach.
Interviews
The interviews were semi-structured and involved eighteen
representatives from the eight municipalities and the regional
government. Interviewees were asked about the current status-
example CAD drawings of fallow terrains and strategic visions. They
2.3.1
Spatial transition analysis | 49
reported that selected policy constraints for renewable energy were
available in GIS format for the entire province – a consistent data set
for all municipalities. Interviewees also suggested various ideas for
siting renewable energy technologies, for example, the construction
of PV panels on sound barriers of a new highway. The interviews
revealed many relevant insights. Some of the data, however, turned
out to be too detailed for research on the regional energy target but
Table 2.1. Overview of results from the PALET questionnaire: the four
dimensions of sustainability, criteria and scores (bandwidth and average;
1 indicating ‘not important’ and 5 ‘important’).
Dimension Criterion questionnaire
Lowest
score
Highest
score
Average
score
Technical Make use of renewable energy
sources
4 5 4.8
Employ locally available energy 2 5 4.4
Aim for a diversied energy system 1 5 4.2
Aim for a self-sucient energy
landscape
3 5 4.5
Environmental Reduction of harmful emissions 3 5 4.4
Do not compete with food production 3 5 4.3
Preserve/improve biodiversity 4 5 4.6
Preserve other ecosystem services 3 5 4.8
Socio-cultural Attractive landscape 3 5 4.7
Preserve sites with cultural heritage
value
2 5 4.6
Maintain (or improve) potentials for
recreation and ecotourism
1 5 3.7
Economical Access to aordable energy 2 5 4.1
Minimize land-use competition 1 5 3.9
Create local and regional jobs 4 5 4.6
Maintain/improve secure energy
supply
2 5 4.4
Economic feasibility 2 5 4.6
2
50 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Questionnaire
whom were civil servants and alder(wo)men. The results of the
energy sources’, ‘economic feasibility’ and the ‘preservation of
cultural heritage sites’ were considered important criteria that
should be taken into account for the sustainable energy transition
in this region. Other criteria such as ‘minimize land use competition’
and ‘maintain potentials for recreation and ecotourism’ were
considered important to some extent. The relatively high average of
criteria indicates a desire to develop a sustainable energy landscape,
even though some respondents considered particular criteria less
important than others. Clearly, there is consensus and a positive
attitude towards the use of locally available renewable energy
sources. Landscapes with high scenic values should be considered
carefully during the transition.
Selection of renewable energy sources and technologies
Five renewable energy sources were studied in detail for the
Parkstad Limburg region: solar, wind, heat-cold storage, hydropower
and biomass. Deep geothermal energy was excluded for two
reasons: a lack of reliable data on geothermal potential and the very
low potential indicated in the few references that were available.
were selected (table 2.2). For solar energy, For solar energy, the
technologies were PV panels, solar thermal collectors and asphalt
2.3.2
2.3.3
Spatial transition analysis | 51
Renewable energy source (RES) Renewable energy technology (RET)
Solar energy Photo-voltaic (PV) panels
Solar thermal collector
Asphalt solar collector
Wind energy Wind turbine
Small building-integrated wind turbine
Heat-cold storage Open system
Closed system
Mijnwater 2.0 (heat-cold exchange by means of
local old mineshafts)
Hydropower Small hydropower system
Biomass Waste gas
Manure
Verge clippings
Woody biomass
Straw
Energy crop
Table 2.2. Overview of renewable energy sources and technologies that were
selected for PALET. For biomass, types of biomass are described instead of
technologies.
Table 2.3. Overview of conversion eciencies for selected solar energy
technologies. Source: NREL (2013) and Mehalic (2009).
Current and future eciencies 2014 2020 2030 2040 2050
Photovoltaic panels 15% 18% 22% 27% 30%
Solar thermal collectors 35% 39% 45% 51% 56%
Asphalt solar collectors 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
2
52 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Operationalization of stakeholder preferences
For solar energy, the physical potentials and constraints, technical
explicit. A complete overview of constraints that limit the potential
of renewable energy generation can be found in appendix A. For
shape of terrain, (2) parcels with northern orientation, (3) parcels
with steep slope, (4) competition with food production and (5) parcels
within protected landscape. The importance of food production to
the stakeholders and experts resulted in the exclusion of 90% of
agricultural land from being used as PV farms. The remainder might
become available due to continuous improvements in agricultural
practice in the Netherlands (computed on the basis of historical
trends). The high importance of the socio-cultural criterion aesthetic
panels and solar thermal collectors. Half of the settlements with
heritage status – the most visible part – and all cultural heritage
buildings were excluded. Because of the importance of the socio-
cultural criterion recreation and ecotourism, lakes used for
understanding of the motivation for energy transition in the region.
During this phase of the research, four types of constraints that
Physical constraints that inhibit the implementation of a
slopes inhibiting the installation of PV farms.
Exogenous policy constraints that are dictated from outside
turbines.
2.3.4
Spatial transition analysis | 53
Endogenous policy constraints that are formalized in regional
or local legislation. The responsible legal bodies within the
study area can change constraints such as the heritage status
of certain settlements.
Normative constraints that are not (yet) formalized in
regional stakeholders towards certain RET or RET locations.
constraints within the conceptual diagram for sustainable energy
landscapes enables stakeholders to better understand the number
and types of constraints for each technology.
Questionnaire
whom were civil servants and alder(wo)men. The results of the
energy sources’, ‘economic feasibility’ and the ‘preservation of
cultural heritage sites’ were considered important criteria that
should be taken into account for the sustainable energy transition
in this region. Other criteria such as ‘minimize land use competition’
and ‘maintain potentials for recreation and ecotourism’ were
considered important to some extent. The relatively high average of
criteria indicates a desire to develop a sustainable energy landscape,
even though some respondents considered particular criteria less
important than others. Clearly, there is consensus and a positive
attitude towards the use of locally available renewable energy
sources. Landscapes with high scenic values should be considered
carefully during the transition.
2.3.5
2
54 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
S
o
c
i
o
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
minimum technical
criteria
normative constraint
5. Exclude all landmarked
buildings (e.g. castle)
6. Exclude 90% of agricultural land for
PV farms (competition with food
production)
7. Exclude PV panels above railroad and
PV farms on agricultural land
within protected landscape
8. Exclude ponds/lakes used for leisure
8
6
7
5
endogenous policy constraint
4. Exclude 50% of settlements with
heritage status
4
physical constraint
1. Exclude unfit shape of object,
terrain or water surface
2. Exclude sites with north orientation
for PV farms
3. Exclude sites with steep slope for
PV farms (> 10o)
2
3
1
Constraints related to
PV farm on agricultural
land
Energy potential mapping
For solar and wind energy, heat-cold storage, hydropower and
biomass, the potentials and constraints were illustrated in one
map each (1:25.000). Figure 2.6 shows the map that was created for
solar energy. This map indicates that the entire region falls within
a zone of 1450–1500 h of sunshine per year. Roofs of residential,
public and commercial buildings and industrial plants are suitable
for both PV panels and solar thermal collectors. The map depicts
settlements with heritage status as well as landmarked buildings.
lakes are being used for leisure purposes. In general, agricultural
Note that a 10% rule for agricultural land is applied. The National
Landscape South-Limburg – a large part of the region – is not suited
for PV farms. The Northern part of the region contains large areas
of forest, which are also excluded. In the medium to long-term,
2.3.6
Fig. 2.5. Overview of constraints for selected solar energy technologies.
The gure reveals how a set of specic constraints to renewable energy
technologies can be linked to the dimensions of sustainability. The black
outline indicates the constraints related to the technology PV farm.
Spatial transition analysis | 55
asphalt solar collectors can be integrated into the roads. PV panels
can be integrated in new road structures, above railways and in (a
portion of) the vertical surface of sound barriers along the highway
that is being constructed.
Scenario development
In the reference scenario, the total renewable energy potential
is 69iPJ. In the desired scenario, the renewable energy potential
solar energy potentials and constraints that were included in the
solar energy potential between the two scenarios is mainly the result
of the fact that 90% of the agricultural land is excluded for PV farms
in the desired scenario. Appendix A shows how each constraint
2.3.7
2
Fig. 2.6. Solar energy potential map of Parkstad Limburg.
56 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
2.3.8 Year of energy neutrality
The energy consumption in Parkstad Limburg was 30 PJ in 2012
while the potential energy savings amount to 16 PJ (Bongers, Broers,
Janssen, Kimman, & Weusten, 2014). Combining the results of both
studies, the year of potential energy neutrality has been estimated
anytime between 2035 and 2045 (desired scenario), making use
developments as well as other factors such as technological
The renewable energy portfolio of Parkstad Limburg in the desired
scenario consists largely of solar energy (51.5%) and heat-cold
storage (40.7%). Wind energy (5.6%) is very limited due to policy
and normative constraints. Biomass (2%) contributes relatively
little and consists of second-generation biomass only. Yet, even
in the reference scenario, the use of energy crops on arable land
only doubles the biomass potential (4%). Hydropower (0.2%) has a
are small.
Regional energy potentials exceed the expected demand for
electricity by 19% and heat for 85%. More and more transport
will make use of renewable electricity but the region is unable to
generate the remaining demand of fossil fuel for transport. The
export of renewable electricity as is being done, for example on
Samsø, Denmark.
regard to technologies. For example, PV farms could substitute
enables them to deal with changing societal preferences as well
as technological advancements. Slower deployment of renewable
energy technologies and/or implementation of energy saving
measures would push back the year of energy-neutrality in Parkstad
Limburg and other places where STA is employed to establish
spatially explicit and evidence-based targets for energy transition.
Spatial transition analysis | 57
2.4
2.4.1
Discussion
In this section, we will discuss data, spatial extent and stakeholder
interaction of the case study. We will then look at the similarities
sustainable energy transition.
Data and level of detail
Researching the spatially explicit potentials for multiple renewable
energy sources and technologies in a region of more than 200akm2
accurate and up-to-date GIS data, for example, can become an
issue in countries where such data is incomplete or unavailable.
an estimate rather than a fact. Additional data such as demographic
trends can strengthen the evidence-based character of STA studies.
Thanks to the iterative research process, two scenarios turned out
physical environment and stakeholder preferences, more scenarios
scenarios. The dynamic GIS model that was created for PALET is
being used in the follow-up projects. PALET 2.0 provides insights into
the potential for energy saving and renewable energy generation
for each municipality individually. The model is also being used
in PALET 3.0 to determine short-term targets and support mutual
agreements between the eight municipalities.
Spatial extent and energy neutrality
The spatial extent of PALET was determined on the basis of existing
collaborations between the eight municipalities. This is certainly
2.4.2
2
58 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
2.4.3
this spatial delineation remains somewhat arbitrary since the
collaboration with other regions may provide additional value in
the light of energy transition. Electricity exchange, for example,
could help to deal with the intermittent character of wind and solar
energy. It remains to stress that energy neutral regions, as opposed
to autarkic regions, are well connected with other regions in order
to create robust energy systems.
Stakeholders, interaction and preferences
The excellent interaction with commissioners and representatives
from the municipalities enabled the PALET research process to
proceed smoothly. This may not be the case in all regions, while
rightfully about the importance of capacity building in fostering
Scholz, 2011). Stakeholders learn about energy, technologies and
get to know others involved in the transition. Projects such as
PALET are important for researchers too, because they allow the
testing of theoretical concepts and frameworks. Due to limited time,
servants. For more inclusive results, inhabitants, entrepreneurs
and non-governmental organisations need to participate. In
Parkstad Limburg, this is being addressed in follow-up projects. The
during the scenario development, for example the protection of
Some of the constraints that play a role in the STA can be
for present-day exogenous policy constraints, for example, may
of decentralisation. Furthermore, constraints that are currently
normative in character could become part of local or regional
Spatial transition analysis | 59
2.4.4
policies once there is a consensus among stakeholders. In addition,
attitudes towards renewable energy technologies may change in
time due to new insights, changing value systems or other factors
(ETSU, 1993). Therefore, it is suggested to monitor developments
throughout the transition and adjust measures where needed.
Similarities and differences between STA and other approaches
This paper shows how a target for energy transition can be
established by researching the potentials for renewable energy
provision and energy savings. Qualitative considerations of
stakeholders and experts are included in the STA, together with
the particular bio-physical characteristics of Parkstad Limburg.
In doing so STA expands on the work of (Wang et al., 2014) who
preferences. Blaschke et al. (2013) too uses GIS maps and
distinguishes between ‘technical’ and ‘realistic’ potentials. The latter,
however, is solely based on expert judgement and not informed
by stakeholder preferences. Similar to van den Dobbelsteen et al.
(2011), STA illustrates renewable energy potentials through maps.
The dynamic GIS model and inclusion of stakeholder preference
as the visual assessment of potential interventions (for example A.
Grêt-Regamey & Wissen-Hayek, 2013) can be carried out once the
energy transition target has been established. In Parkstad Limburg,
the STA was conducted in a relatively short amount of time and at
an early phase of the regional energy transition. As a matter of fact,
it marked the start of the planning process. The research provided
the foundations for a joint political ambition (the target) while
contributing to capacity building in the region. If reliable (GIS) data
is available and active stakeholder participation incorporated, STA
in other countries.
2
60 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
2.5 Conclusions
The main objective of the research presented in this paper was to
advance the study of spatially explicit and evidence-based targets
for sustainable energy transition at the regional and local scale.
This paper focuses on the study of renewable energy potentials
for energy savings should be studied in parallel (see for example
Bongers et al., 2014).
The proposed methodological framework – Spatial Transition
target and the time needed to reach energy neutrality. In doing so,
STA allows for the exploration of alternative transition paths.
The paper illustrates that Parkstad Limburg has the potential to
become energy neutral anytime between 2035 and 2045. This
have been initiated and medium to long-term actions discussed
of existing policies or even the design of new policies. Empirical
data, scenarios and dynamic models reveal the direct relationships
between the local landscape characteristics, stakeholder values
and renewable energy potentials. In addition, STA can help to
explicate how particular sustainability criteria and associated
of renewable energy technologies. This enables stakeholders
interventions. STA therefore provides a solid approach fostering
a sustainable energy transition, initiated by regional stakeholders
and informed by local preferences.
As opposed to current mainstream practice, STA aids a thorough
transition process, without limiting the discussion to a small
number of economically interesting technologies. Opposition
Spatial transition analysis | 61
towards certain renewable energy technologies is expected to be
early stage. Continuous research in Parkstad Limburg will, among
aspects, for example pay-back time, deserve further attention.
However, what has already become clear through the research in
wind turbines, for example, can help to maintain landscape scenery
while alternative technologies are more cost intensive.
Close collaboration with social scientists is needed to further
strengthen stakeholder interaction. This applies to energy transition
in general and spatially explicit approaches such as STA in particular.
Further research is needed on the role of landscape architects and
other environmental designers in energy transition processes.
environmental designers to energy transition – may be fostered
by scenario design (e.g. Weller, 2008) and research through design
approaches (e.g. Lenzholzer, Duchhart, & Koh, 2013).
For transitions at a regional level, such as Parkstad Limburg, it is
important to acknowledge and connect with already existing local
initiatives and to foster the emergence of a transition community
consisting of citizens, entrepreneurs and other (semi-public)
organisations. Initiatives such as PALET can provide inspiration and
that empowers local initiatives while addressing global challenges.
2
62 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Acknowledgments
The authors like to thank the representatives of Parkstad Limburg
for their enthusiasm and learning attitude with regard to sustainable
energy transition. Next, we would like to thank the project partners
for reviewing the manuscript.
Spatial transition analysis | 63
2
Smoke of a nearby re reveals the light beams of the heliostats (mirrors on
the ground) to the central tower of concentrated solar power plant (CSP)
Gemasolar, near Seville, Spain (source: author).
Chapter 3
Climate adaptation, urban
regeneration and browneld
reclamation: a literature review
on landscape quality in large-scale
transformation projects
Dirk Oudes
Sven Stremke
Landscape Research, 45(7), 905–919. 2020
66 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Abstract
The transition to renewable energy is a powerful driver for
large-scale landscape transformation. Environmental design is
increasingly concerned with this transition, but little is known
about purposefully designed renewable energy landscapes.
To improve the design of large-scale energy landscapes we
reviewed the literature on three innovative large-scale landscape
transformations: Room for the River Nijmegen-Lent (The
Netherlands), Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (UK) and Freshkills
the role of design, governments and participation. Concerning
transformation. While designers played an important role in large-
scale landscape transformations, local governments seem not to be
in control of the decision-making and participation was limited. The
on landscape transformation and provide valuable insights for the
design of renewable energy landscapes.
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 67
3
Introduction
Changing societal demands and values often result in the
transformation of landscapes (Antrop, 2005). Landscape is here
result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”
(Council of Europe, 2000, p. 2). Landscape transformation involves
a change in the dominant land use and the visual appearance of
the landscape. Environmental design disciplines are active in an
increasing number of landscape transformations. These disciplines,
such as landscape architecture, urban design, spatial planning
and architecture are concerned with the conscious shaping of
the environment. Examples of designed transformations are the
remediation of post-industrial landscapes (e.g. Landscape Park
Duisburg Nord in Germany), urban regeneration (e.g. Madrid RIO
in Spain) and large-scale climate adaptation (e.g. Rebuild by Design
programme in the USA). These examples illustrate that landscape
A key driver of landscape transformation nowadays, is the transition
landscape. The renewable energy target for The Netherlands in 2030,
These targets will necessitate large-scale landscape transformations
in denser populated areas (for the Dutch situation see Sijmons et
al., 2017). Up until now, energy transition in denser populated areas
is somewhat limited to small-scale renewable energy interventions
(e.g. groups of wind turbines in business areas), while large-scale
interventions are often located in remote areas (e.g. utility scale
Renewable energy interventions in denser populated areas prove to
be controversial, because the resulting landscape transformations,
3.1
68 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Wolsink, 2007b). In several countries, because of this controversy,
environmental design is increasingly engaged with renewable
energy landscapes (A. Van den Brink & Bruns, 2012), although
this is a relatively new topic for environmental design (Stremke &
van den Dobbelsteen, 2013). Environmental designers can use
in the design of landscape transformations. In this paper, we
functional, experiential and future values (Hooimeijer et al., 2001).
The design of large-scale landscape transformation for renewable
General environmental design approaches and environmental
design processes are widely discussed in literature (e.g. Sijmons,
knowledge to advance environmental design processes for energy
van Kann, et al., 2012). Large-scale interventions are featured in
these studies from a strategic planning and design perspective,
which involves long term processes of change and vision
development (Kempenaar & van den Brink, 2018). Publications
on the operational design of renewable energy landscapes, where
tend to focus on experience and preserving scenic values – a single
operational design of large-scale landscape transformations for
is: How is landscape quality addressed in large-scale transformation
projects and what is the role of design, governments and participation?
Because little has been published on designed large-scale
renewable energy landscapes, we adopted a wider perspective and
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 69
3
systematically reviewed the literature on three designed large-scale,
constructed landscape transformations: Queen Elizabeth Olympic
Park (London, UK), Room for the River Nijmegen-Lent (Nijmegen,
the Netherlands) and Freshkills Park (New York City, USA). For ease
second as ‘Nijmegen-Lent’.
The second section of this paper explains the selection of cases,
describes the literature retrieval and analysis, and introduces
the three cases. The third section introduces the key concepts
underlying the research. The fourth section presents the results,
participation. The research is discussed and conclusions presented
Method and materials
We used a case based approach to identify literature on the
design of large-scale landscape transformations. Experts provided
means of a desk-study. A preliminary database search informed
the case literature.
Case selection, literature retrieval and data analysis
Our systematic review of cases of landscape transformation
aimed to “comprehensively identify, appraise and synthesise all
the relevant studies on a given topic” (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008,
cases of landscape transformation. The cases had to (1) show
transformation of landscape function and character, (2) be large
in scale, (3) be completed or under construction, and (4) involve
3.2
3.2.1
70 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
environmental designers. A total of 18 experts (72%) responded
material). In a desk study, we reduced the long list to 16 cases.
The existence of peer-reviewed literature was a condition for case
search revealed peer-reviewed papers for 8 of the 16 shortlisted
be excluded.
For each of the eight remaining cases we performed a database
search for peer-reviewed and grey literature in Scopus, Avery Index,
concepts design, planning and architecture with (alternatives of) the
case name. The level of detail in the literature ranges from in-depth
accounts of the transformation process by researchers, for example
by interviewing designers and stakeholders, to essays that position
the cases in a wider societal or academic context, to papers written
by authors immersed in the transformation process. We included
literature dated from the initiation of the transformation project
until autumn 2018.
excluded literature that did not examine environmental design
in relation to the transformation project. The three cases with
most literature were selected: Olympic Park, Nijmegen-Lent and
Freshkills Park. We analysed 61 articles: 19 on Olympic Park, 17
on Nijmegen-Lent and 25 on Freshkills Park. A graphic overview of
the literature selection process for the three selected cases can be
The conclusions drawn in this paper are the authors’ interpretation
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 71
Records identifi ed through database searching
(n = 405; OP=83; NL=237; FK=85)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 387; OP=86; NL=216; FK=85)
Records screened on title and abstract
(n = 387; OP=86; NL=216; FK=85)
Excluded items
(n = 249; OP=46; NL=159; FK=44)
Records screened on full-text
(n = 108; OP=30; NL=48; FK=30)
Records included in qualitative analysis
(n = 61; OP=19; NL=17; FK=25)
n
OP
NL
FK
total
Olympic Park
Nijmegen-Lent
Freshkills Park
Excluded items
(n = 48; OP=11; NL=31; FK=6)
Items not retrieved
(n = 23; OP=2; NL=9; FK=12)
Additional records identifi ed through other sources
(n = 22; OP=14; NL=4; FK=4)
3
Bergström, 2017). We combined both inductive and deductive coding
to identify four key aspects relevant to landscape transformations:
aspects, such as project and programme management and legal
processes but are beyond the scope of this review.
Basic information on the three cases
The 2012 Olympic Games served as a catalyst to regenerate a part
of East-London giving rise to the Olympic Park. Nijmegen-Lent is a
Dutch climate adaptation project involving the creation of a river
bypass and the relocation of a dike to increase discharge capacity
of the river Waal. Freshkills Park concerns the transformation of
3.2.2
Fig. 3.1. Flow diagram of the literature selection process.
72 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
O
lympic Park Nijmegen-Lent Freshkills Park
Location Lower Lea Valley in East
London, United Kingdom.
Nijmegen, East of the
Netherlands.
Staten Island, New York City,
United States of America.
Size 230 hectare. 250 hectare. 890 hectare.
Timespan 2005 (Olympic bid) – 2014
(opening park).
2000 (announcement) – 2015
(construction).
2006 (masterplan) - present
Incentive 2012 Olympic Games. National fl ood risk
management program Room
for the River consisting of 30+
indiviudual projects.
Closure of landfi ll.
Aim Support Olympic Games and
urban regeneration of East
London (including jobs and
houses).
Integrate fl ood protection
measures with urban
development, recreation and
road infrastructure.
Reclamation of landfi ll as public
park.
Main spatial
interventions
Urban and public park
development. Relocation
of 250 businesses, 1500
residents and wildlife.
Creation of a river bypass and
dike relocation. Demolition of
50 houses.
Capping of landfi ll and
transformation to public park
through ecological renewal.
Costs & funding
(estimate)
Over 8000m pounds (approx.
9000m euros), funded by
national and local government,
and the National Lottery Fund.
Approx. 340m euros,
primarily funded by national
government.
650m dollars (570m euros),
partially funded by city of New
York.
Conceptual framework
transformations aims to inform the design of large-scale renewable
energy landscapes. In literature on energy landscapes, amongst
others, three aspects are considered to be of critical importance:
governments (Leibenath & Lintz, 2018), design (Stremke &
van den Dobbelsteen, 2013) and participation (Devine-Wright,
2011a). We found the same aspects in the literature on the three
aforementioned large-scale landscape transformation projects.
3.3
Fig. 3.2. Key characteristics of the three cases.
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 73
Economic
Social
Ecological
Cultural
Use
value
Design
criterion
Experiential
value
Future
value
Societal interest
3
In each case, governmental bodies (in a multi-level governance
constellation) proposed a landscape transformation and employed
design to give form to the intended change. Local stakeholders
were involved to various degrees. All four research components
introduced below.
Landscape quality
as design criteria and are based on the Vitruvius triplet: utilitas,
is translated as use value
is translated as experiential value
translated as future value (Hooimeijer et al., 2001). Daniel (2001)
human viewers” (p. 268). Much of the recent research focuses on
venustas (e.g.
Hooimeijer et al. (2001), who relate each of the three aforementioned
design criteria to four societal interests: economic, social, ecological
and cultural. This framework enables each design criterion to
3.3.1
Fig. 3.3. Landscape quality
framework: aspects of
landscape quality are at the
intersection of design criteria
and societal interests.
74 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
relate to both design criterion and societal interest. Hooimeijer et
from an economic perspective for example, include connectivity
and adaptivity to new uses. Aspects of social interest include
to essential resources. The ecological perspective includes aspects
such as contamination and future supply of resources. Aspects of
cultural interest include beauty, identity/character and cultural
heritage values.
Governments
Political considerations, economic development and environmental
concerns have fueled a reorganisation of government in much of the
Western world (Albrechts, Healey, & Kunzmann, 2003). Government
decentralization has led to increased planning responsibilities of
local authorities, and involvement of economic parties and civil
society in decision-making (Healey, Khakee, Motte, & Needham,
We found that interactions between multiple tiers of government
featured prominently in the cases. Interactions with non-state
actors reported in the literature were mainly concerned with the
participation of local stakeholders (see section 3.3.4). During the
literature analysis, we considered the roles of government at the
local, mid-level, national and supranational levels as well as the
interaction between these levels.
Design
Design is both an activity, or process, and a product, such as a
masterplan. We based our analysis of the design aspect in the
by Stiles (1994), as it encompasses “all the design/planning issues
which necessarily have to be addressed in the work undertaken
by the landscape profession” (Stiles, 1994, p. 141). Stiles (1994)
(2) initiation of change and (3) evaluation of the (changed) landscape
3.3.2
3.3.3
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 75
3
resources. Resource description encompasses the analysis and
representation of the existing landscape, its mechanisms and
interrelationships. The initiation of change contains the projected
evaluates the design, how, and the criteria used. For the analysis
of design in the transformation projects, we were particularly
interested in the design process (e.g. activities, methods, products)
and in the role of design in the transformation process.
Participation
environment of local stakeholders, we studied the participation
strategies employed in the three transformation projects. We used
the ‘participation ladder’ (Arnstein, 1969), which clusters eight
participatory strategies in three categories, to identify and organise
the strategies that were used to engage local stakeholders in the
transformation project. The strategies citizen control, delegated
and therapy and manipulation as ‘non-participation’. In addition
to the participatory strategies by which other actors involve
stakeholders themselves resisting the transformation process.
Results
of governments (3.4.2), followed by design (3.4.3) and participation
supporting the results can be found in the supplementary material.
3.3.4
3.4
76 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Nijmegen-LentOlympic Park Freshkills Park
Use
value
Design
criterion
Experiential
value
Future
value
Societal interest
Economic
Social
Ecological
Cultural
Economic
Social
Ecological
Cultural
Economic
Social
Ecological
Cultural
12 11 33
6132 9
7150
3361
0007
4031
1054
0151
0158
Landscape quality
landscape can be related to all design criteria – most attention is
given to use value and experiential value use value,
cultural interests are underrepresented. Within experiential value,
social and cultural interests are highly represented. Within future
value, social interests are underrepresented. The reported aspects
case, across several, but not all societal interests. For Olympic Park
development in relation to the investments made for the Olympic
Games. For Nijmegen-Lent
protection with urban development and the creation of a riverpark.
For Freshkills Park this concerns the ecological remediation of the
shows that besides the main objective of each project, multiple
demands are addressed in the transformation. In the following,
interests, starting with economic interest.
3.4.1
Fig. 3.4. Mentioning of eects of the transformation on landscape quality
across the design criteria and societal interests: often (dark grey), occasionally
(light grey) and seldom or never (white) relative to the individual case, including
absolute numbers of mentioning.
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 77
3
to economic interest is the connection with the wider geographical
area. Furthermore, economic future values (bottom left cell for each
developments. Aspects of social injustice feature prominently in the
literature on social interest. While amenities such as a public park
concern the accessibility of these amenities to various groups,
especially in Olympic Park
safety, wildlife and habitat creation, relate to the ecological interest. A
central item is the reintroduction or restoration of natural functions
and values, both as patches and as green infrastructure. The future
values address themes such as renewable energy provision, circular
economy and climate adaptation.
The cultural interest
projects through both ‘traditional’ experiential values such the
aesthetic experience of landscape features as well as symbolic future
values, such as Freshkills Park as representation of sustainability
(Hutchinson, 2015). Olympic Park and Nijmegen-Lent revolve mainly
on experiential value and Freshkills Park on future values.
case of Olympic Park, the decreasing amount of social housing as a
and the cancelling of renewable energy projects (Smith, 2014b) as
well as a leisure centre (Shirai, 2014) for cost reasons.
Nijmegen-
Lent
78 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
same site” (Redeker, 2018, p. 317). This has even raised water safety
measures (Havinga & der Nederlanden, 2018). For Olympic Park, on
the other hand, Hoolachan (2017) stresses the tensions between
on social sustainability at the local level, such as the displacing of
existing communities.
Governments
During the bid phase for Olympic Park, a patchwork of existing local
partnerships collaboratively developed a regeneration strategy
(Owens, 2012). The increasing pressure to deliver the site for the
lay with a mid-level dedicated planning agency, to which the local
2014). The individual boroughs were participating in the decision-
making process through various boards.
Nijmegen-Lent was previously earmarked for urban development
by the municipality. The national and local governments negotiated
take the lead in the transformation (Heeres et al., 2017), supported
programme, supported by nationwide descriptions of landscape
characteristics (Busscher et al., 2018). The national government
coordinated the Room for the River programme, with strict
project (F. Klijn et al., 2013). Quality control mechanisms were
supervised by an independent multidisciplinary Quality team (F. Klijn
et al., 2013). This ‘Q-team’ made unsolicited recommendations and
3.4.2
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 79
3
was unconstrained by formal governmental or institutional opinions
The Freshkhills Park project is being run by the New York City
Department of Parks and Recreation, while the local Staten
(Hutchinson, 2015). NYC Parks actively employs the experiential
value of the site to engage communities and to raise both interest
and funds for the three development phases (Hutchinson, 2015).
Design
Design process: resource description, initiation of change,
evaluation
Within resource description, the literature on the Olympic Park
project reports a lack of in-depth understanding of the local social
topography and how residents experience their landscape (Davis,
perspective (3.4.1). Environmental design reportedly plays an
important role in this process, as representing and visualising the
Lower Lea Valley as a deprived site is used to justify the large public
expenses (Davis, 2011).
Within the initiation of change, the integration of the existing
addressed. The clearing of the Olympic Park site (most houses and
businesses were relocated and the entire area was remediated)
is framed by scholars and stakeholders alike as a ‘tabula rasa’
designers to “provide a sense of the future ‘character’ or ‘identity’
of legacy for local stakeholders” (Davis, 2011). Regarding Freshkills
3.4.3
3.4.3.1
80 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Park, Pollak (2007, p. 89) argues that for transformations of such
scale, the perspective of a “stable whole” is an illusion and that the
identity of the site is dynamic and heterogenic.
Another theme is the use of representations, products of the design
process. Representations are reported to be subject to political
control in Olympic Park
in Freshkills Park (May, 2008). However, in Nijmegen-Lent, designs
and drawings were reportedly helpful in understanding concepts
and stakeholders in being open to new ideas in a collaborative
process (Heeres et al., 2017).
The three projects comprise a variety of formal and informal
evaluations of design proposals
On Olympic Park, the objective of the Legacy Masterplan Framework
(LMF) was to guide development after the Olympic Games and
it formed the basis for other spatial visons. Davis (Davis, 2011)
stresses the absence of alternative scenarios in the LMF, as well
as the absence of clear evaluation criteria for the proposed spatial
scenario. For Freshkills Park, Hutchinson (2015) reports on the
lack of investigated alternative options to a park. The literature
on Nijmegen-Lent reports that alternative designs were evaluated
but that design criteria were either disputed (Winnubst, 2011) or
unknown to the inhabitants (Cuppen & Winnubst, 2008). In addition,
(i.e. future value) of the proposed intervention (Cuppen & Winnubst,
Role of design in the transformation process
Designs for Olympic Park reportedly had an important function
in the initial visioning process for the Olympics (Evans, 2014) as a
transformation process (Nimmo, Frost, Shaw, & McNevin, 2011)
and in projecting value and need with regard to the urban legacy
3.4.3.2
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 81
3
(Davis, 2011). Despite the strong design-led approach (Neal, 2011),
dependent on the political and economic context (Davis, 2011).
The design process for Nijmegen-Lent was controlled by the
designers (Heeres et al., 2017), who worked in tandem with the
process manager (Hulsker, Wienhoven, van Diest, & Buijs, 2011).
Experienced designers in the role of lead designer and as part of
the Q-team functioned as links between the technical design and
the integrative spatial design. An overall collaborative approach
to design is reported, which resulted in shared solutions and the
support by engaged inhabitants (Heeres et al., 2017).
The design competition for Freshkills Park served as an impetus
for the transformation, which suggests that in this project a similar
importance is attributed to designers. Environmental designers led
an large multidisciplinary team and their work is mentioned as one
of the key drivers guiding the shape of the park (Hutchinson, 2015).
However, May (2008) states that design is being used to recast the
image of Freshkills Park in “the collective memory of a population”,
with the result that the “horrible realities of our Modern American
several ‘contingencies’ or events that altered the original vision
for Freshkills Park, such as the terrorist attack of 9/11, pressure
from the Staten Island administration, and Superstorm Sandy.
These contingencies “changed the ideas of what a park should
be” (Hutchinson, 2015, p. 169): a new range of values, roles and
functions are now associated with parks.
Participation
Participatory strategies
and literature primarily discusses the involvement of inhabitants.
The higher-level participatory strategies citizen control, delegated
3.4.4
3.4.4.1
82 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
power and partnership, according to the literature, have not been
applied in any of the three cases.
In the Olympic Park consultation and
informing strategies. The criticism regarding consultation relates
Although the scale and complexity of this project is considered
consultation strategies employed are criticised for not aiming to
2011). In Arnstein’s categorisation this could be considered a form
of therapy. The workshops for the draft version of the LMF were
attended by 10 to 40 people, which “represented a tiny fraction of
the population of each of the boroughs” (Davis, 2011).
Nijmegen-Lent are
placation, consultation and informing. Inhabitants joined advisory
boards (placation) and formal (Winnubst, 2011) and informal
consultation events were organised (Heeres et al., 2017). Informing
strategies
2012). In the phase of the environmental impact assessment, the
participatory process was subordinate to the political process
(Cuppen & Winnubst, 2008).
Similarly, the literature on Freshkills Park reports placation,
consultation and informing. Consultation resulted in “consensus
building in the community and ultimately encouraged support for
the reclamation” (De Sousa & D’Souza, 2011) and the inclusion of
public preferences in the masterplan (Sugarman, 2009).
Participation and design
In Nijmegen-Lent, environmental designers invested in building
professional relationships with inhabitants (by means of e.g.
excursions), which enabled a mutual exchange of thoughts on
important issues. Overall, participation is reported to have had a
possibly contributed to the realisation of the project within the
envisioned timeframe (Heeres et al., 2017).
3.4.4.2
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 83
3
Public meetings on Freshkills Park revealed community preferences,
including renewable energy provision, an educational programme
(De Sousa & D’Souza, 2011) and the parks infrastructure
(Hutchinson, 2015). Some of those functions, it has been argued,
may have otherwise been introduced by governmental authorities
(Hutchinson, 2015).
The design for Olympic Park
was not made clear how the output of the consultation events
structured analysis or evaluation of the outcomes of consultation
was absent, allowing the environmental designers to ‘cherry-pick’
(Davis, 2011).
Indication of resistance
In addition to these participation strategies, we found evidence of
confrontation between inhabitants and governments. Inhabitants
were reportedly pro-active in demanding a role in the planning
process for Nijmegen-Lent, in response to the initial plan to
demolish 50 houses (Winnubst, 2011). This confrontational
approach was fueled by local attitudes to government based on
the previous experience of the annexation of the small town of
Opposition to Freshkills Park
the suitability of the site as a park (Hutchinson, 2015). Resistance to
Olympic Park focused on the relocation of existing land uses, such
as allotments and cycling facilities. Opposition was also fueled by
an evaluation of the existing landscape that was not shared by local
stakeholders (Davis, 2011) and the radical changes to the landscape
for inhabitants (Hoolachan, 2017).
3.4.4.3
84 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Design of large-scale landscape transformations
The literature on the three projects points to a central and integrative
role of design. However, we expected certain topics related to design
and designing to be discussed more extensively in the literature
on large-scale landscape transformations. Firstly, literature only
incidentally referred to the use of evidence-based scenarios or
alternative futures to facilitate the initiation of change (3.3.3).
Contrastingly, an increasing number of scholars are concerned with
2012). This suggests a gap between current scholarly thinking and
design practice. Secondly, the reviewed literature stresses that
criteria to evaluate design(s) are either absent, unknown to, or
disputed by local stakeholders. Stremke (2015, p.7) argues that for
the design of energy landscapes “criteria have to be selected, made
explicit, and prioritised by stakeholders and experts”. The literature
on the three landscape transformations reveals no attempts to
accomplish such systematic and transparent evaluation. Thirdly,
multifunctionality as a consistent and sustained objective in large-
scale landscape transformations. Recent research suggests that
multifunctionality is also a characteristic of certain types of energy
landscapes: landscapes with wind turbines are an example of so-
called ‘component energy landscapes’ that feature concurrent land
uses. ‘Entity energy landscapes’ such as surface coal mines, on the
contrary, are characterised by a mono-functional land use and
cases, however, are large, distinct landscape entities that comprise
multiple land uses. This opens up the possibility of future large-
scale renewable energy landscapes that may embody the spatial
expanse and physical boundaries of entity energy landscapes and
yet permit the multifunctionality of component energy landscapes.
This would enable a scaling up of the energy transition in some
3.5
3.5.1
Discussion
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 85
3
landscapes, while allowing the integration of other functions and,
not unimportantly, ease the preservation of landscapes with cultural
or natural values elsewhere.
Governance levels and interaction
The results of this review align with the rise of the mid-level
the interactions of economic relations, environmental systems
and daily life time-space patterns can be better understood than
at a higher or lower level of government” (Healey, 2007, p. 23).
The exception is the Nijmegen-Lent case, which the literature
shows, revolved primarily around the interaction between local
government in this case can be explained by the need to coordinate
Participation versus co-creation
Participatory strategies have been employed with varying degrees of
success. The literature suggests that participation was used mainly
in a one-way fashion, rather than to encourage active engagement
in the design process. Literature also reports the use of rather
conventional methods, such as public meetings, workshops and
site visits. Advanced approaches to engage stakeholders, such
as web-based decision support tools (e.g. Grêt-Regamey et al.,
2017) or participatory mapping (e.g. Stremke & Picchi, 2017), are
not mentioned. Quite the contrary has been described: during
consultation events on Olympic Park, for example, participants were
identify creative alternatives” (Davis, 2011).
3.5.2
3.5.3
86 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
General conclusions
This study set out to investigate large-scale landscape transformation
projects to advance the environmental design of renewable energy
How is
landscape quality addressed in large-scale transformation projects
and what is the role of design, governments and participation?
cases by the design criteria functionality (use value), experience
(experiential value), and rmness (future value), of which the
latter receives the least attention. Literature attributes many
aspects can be distinguished as economic, social, ecological and
cultural
in the literature. Each project has a distinctive focus within the
economic costs or political context.
The role of mid-level governments was to control the
transformation, resulting in an advisory role of local governments.
Which government body is in control and how it asserts power
Environmental designers played an important role in analysing the
existing site and developing designs for the landscape. Nevertheless,
the literature shows that important decisions were made before
environmental designers have been involved. Also, external events
and conditions led to changes in the design, or to alterations of
functions and values ascribed to the transformation.
The role of participation in the transformation projects was
limited and participation strategies were somewhat limited to
consultation and informing. While literature indicates that inclusion
3.6
3.6.1
Conclusions
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 87
3
of local issues or preferences, potentially informed by participatory
strategies, results in synergies and support for the transformation,
poor integration of participation in the design process endangers
government involved, the type of design process and participation
strategies, all three cases feature some resistance to the large-scale
landscape transformation.
New knowledge contributing to renewable energy transition
This review resulted in insights not only for large-scale landscape
transformation projects, but also for renewable energy transition.
Where the three studied cases show consideration of all three
functionality and experience
are addressed in energy landscape debates. The cases incorporate
multiple functions, but this is not yet common practice for energy
landscapes (see for solar energy e.g. Scognamiglio, 2016). Aspects
of rmness, or the future value of energy landscapes, are for
example reversibility and recycling of energy landscapes. Although
energy landscape literature stresses the importance of this
substantially incorporated in renewable energy projects yet.
The review showed that the large-scale character of the landscape
transformation complicates the development of a new and yet
meaningful landscape character. Distinctive for the transition
to renewable energy (as opposed to the three cases) is that
standardised technological and currently unfamiliar objects are
introduced into the landscape. Introduction of energy technologies,
such as wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) panels, will therefore
of landscape diversity at the larger scale. Inclusion of local issues and
stakeholder preferences, as mentioned in the general conclusions,
can contribute to maintain and strengthen landscape diversity.
large-scale landscape transformations are evaluated. Similarly,
3.6.2
88 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
energy landscapes and evaluate projects on characteristics other
reported in the literature on Nijmegen-Lent
for such an endeavour is to have solid and comprehensive
understanding of the current landscape characteristics.
The three cases illustrate how executed large-scale landscape
of large-scale landscape transformations, the discourse on large-
renewable energy and
Acknowledgements
The authors like to thank the scholars and experts that provided us
with an extensive overview of large-scale landscape transformation
projects. Furthermore, we thank the anonymous peers for reviewing
the manuscript.
Landscape quality in large-scale landscape transformation projects | 89
3
Entrance of the publicly accessible solar park ‘de Kwekerij’, in Gelderland, the
Netherlands (source: author).
Chapter 4
Next generation solar power plants?
A comparative analysis of frontrunner
solar landscapes in Europe
Dirk Oudes
Sven Stremke
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145. 2021
92 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Abstract
Solar power plants transform the existing landscape. This landscape
change raises concerns about visual impact, land use competition
and the end-of-life stage of solar power plants. Existing research
stresses the need to address these concerns, arguing for a
combined spatial arrangement of solar power plant and landscape:
solar landscape. Solar landscapes share the aim to achieve other
electricity generation, yet empirical evidence on solar landscapes is
scarce. This comparative analysis of 11 frontrunner cases aims to
contribute to the understanding of solar landscapes, by studying
the spatial properties visibility, multifunctionality and temporality.
is partly enhanced in combination with recreational amenities.
Between 6 and 14 provisioning, regulating and cultural functions
were found in the cases. Functions were located beneath arrays,
between arrays and adjacent to photovoltaic patches. Temporal
introduced new landscape features to enhance future use of the
sites after decommissioning. Across cases, this case study shows
how contemporary concerns about solar power plants, such as
visual impact, land use competition and the end-of-life stage are
addressed. Although the cases altogether present a portfolio of
measures responding to societal concerns, the full potential of
the three key properties is yet to be explored. Furthermore, this
comparative analysis highlights the need to address emerging
may supplement the assessment of solar power plants to examine
not only negative, but also positive impacts.
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 93
4
Introduction
Solar power plants (SPP) have been constructed at an increasing
rate over the past decades (Comello et al., 2018). These power
plants, consisting of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) arrays and
electrical infrastructure, transform the landscape (Carullo, Russo,
by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction
of natural and/or human factors” (Council of Europe, 2000). SPP
not only transform existing landscape patterns, that is the size,
shape, arrangement and distribution of individual landscape
elements (Farina, 2006), but also how the landscape is perceived
Delicado, Figueiredo, & Silva, 2016).
These landscape transformations raise societal concerns about
visual impact, land use competition and the end-of-life stage. Visual
impact is a key concern with respect to SPPs (Apostol, Palmer, et
previously occupied by other uses and therefore increase land use
pressure. SPPs can, for example, result in the loss of agricultural
2011) and soil is moved or covered (Tsoutsos et al., 2005). These
land use changes can be substantial in a short period of time (Poggi,
and soil (Turney & Fthenakis, 2011). The common life-span of SPP is
20-30 years, due to the life expectancy of the modules (Fthenakis &
4.1
94 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Kim, 2009). Concerns about the end-of-life stage of SPPs are whether
decommissioning will take place (Windemer, 2019) and if so, what
the state of the resulting landscape will be (Semeraro et al., 2018).
All these three groups of concerns have a clear spatial dimension
and can result in negative responses of local inhabitants and other
responses may threaten the progress of the energy transition
Existing research points to the need of SPP to address societal
concerns, by attending to three key properties: visibility,
multifunctionality and temporality. Visibility refers to whether an SPP
is observable by landscape users from a certain location (Apostol,
changed, for example, by using vegetation for screening or adjusting
the size of the SPP to the characteristics of the host landscape
2019). Multifunctionality refers to the capacity of a certain area
2009). Electricity generation in SPP can be combined, for example,
Temporality is a relatively new, emerging topic in energy landscape
the SPP construction have the potential to enhance the future
landscape or inhibit certain developments after decommissioning
et al., 2018). Temporality is also relevant in the context of recycling
energy landscapes: renewable energy technologies are introduced
at sites formerly used for conventional energies. In Nijmegen in
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 95
4
the Netherlands, for example, an SPP is built on a site previously
Others have recently introduced the concept of ‘photovoltaic
landscape’ or ‘solar landscape’ that encompasses a joint approach
2016). This approach involves a combined spatial arrangement
of SPP and landscape where solar infrastructure is adapted
(e.g. height of arrays, distance between arrays) and ‘landscape
contemporary spatial arrangements of SPPs are optimized for
habitat creation) in addition to electricity generation (Apostol,
build upon the novel concept of solar landscapes to examine SPPs
that pay attention to visibility, multifunctionality and temporality.
However, few studies have investigated the visual, functional and
temporal properties of constructed cases of solar landscapes.
Lobaccaro et al. (2019) is the only study that examines spatial
properties of built solar landscapes. They partly address visibility
and multifunctionality and do not discuss temporality. Anyhow,
most studies overlook the spatial arrangement of SPP and landscape
Randle-Boggis et al., 2020), or present theoretical discussions on
what solar landscapes can be or should
solar landscapes are
this paper: what are the visual, functional and temporal properties of
frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe?
This research aims to contribute to the growing body of knowledge
on solar landscapes by analyzing and comparing the spatial
96 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
properties of constructed solar landscapes in Europe. This study
used expert consultation and desk-study to identify so-called
‘frontrunner’ SPPs. Insights in the innovative properties of these
frontrunner cases constitute a vital contribution to the debate
on how societal concerns about SPP can be resolved. Due to the
novelty of the topic, an analytical framework was developed for the
case study, based on a literature review. This framework focusing on
visibility, multifunctionality and temporality of SPP may also enrich
environmental impact assessments and multi-criteria decision
analyses of SPP in response to prominent societal concerns.
Furthermore, a better understanding of frontrunner cases, in
combination with the cultivation of solar landscape vocabulary, is
believed to support policy and decision makers, SPP developers,
designers and other stakeholders to conceive solar landscapes
The second section of this paper presents the methods and
materials. The framework for the case analysis is presented in
solar infrastructure and landscape feature properties, followed by
visibility, multifunctionality and temporality. The paper is concluded
Case-study approach
This study examines the spatial properties of built solar landscapes.
We adopted a case-study approach in our research, as this allows
for the description of a contemporary phenomenon in its spatial
context (Yin, 2009). We used a multiple embedded case design to
document and compare a high variety of spatial properties across
all cases (Yin, 2009).
4.2
4.2.1
Methods and materials
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 97
4
Case selection
Our research focuses on the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
Germany and Italy, as these countries have shown increasing
attention for solar landscapes. In addition, the travel distance
and language of these countries allowed us to study the cases
within the time and resource provided. We aimed to study cases
of SPP that were recognized for being at the front of addressing
societal concerns and providing functions additional to electricity
recognition in the form of awards granted, for example by solar
industry, and expert judgement. We reached out to photovoltaic
and environmental design experts using personal contacts and
approaching photovoltaic developer and environmental design
associations1. We asked the experts to provide us with the names of
as ecological restoration, recreation or aesthetics.
The expert contact and the desk study on SPP awards resulted in
that complied to two criteria that are key to solar landscapes. First,
the case needed to demonstrate a combined spatial arrangement
of SPP and landscape. Second, the case needed to include new
landscape features in addition to solar infrastructure, for example
water retention areas, opportunities for recreation or habitat
patches. For each case, these criteria were evaluated using design
are expected to increase the variety of spatial properties (Apostol,
1 Associations in Germany: German Solar Association (BSW) and German Association of
Landscape Architects (BDLA). The Netherlands: Holland Solar, Netherlands association
for garden- and landscape architecture (NVTL) and Dutch association of urban designers
and planners (BNSP). Italy: Italian Association of Landscape Architecture (AIAPP). United
Kingdom: Solar Trade Association and Landscape Institute.
4.2.2
98 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
10
3
1
5
8
79
26
4
11
United Kingdom The Netherlands
Germany
Italy
1) Gänsdorf (GER) 4) Southill (UK)
7) Sinnegreide (NL)
10) Monreale (IT)
2) Kwekerij (NL) 5) Hemau (GER)
8) Mühlenfeld (GER)
11) Southwick (UK)
3) Valentano (IT)
6) Laarberg (NL)
9) Midden Groningen (NL)
Fig. 4.1. The 11 selected cases. Scale of the images varies, see table 4.1 for
actual size of the cases (source satellite imagery: Google Earth and Kadaster).
GENERAL SOLAR INFRASTRUCTURE
Cases Latitude
Year of
construction Country
Power
(MWp)
Size
(ha)
Energy density
(MWp/ha)
Land Area Occupation
Ratio (LAOR)
1. Gänsdorf 48'48'12 2009 Germany 54,0 180,9 0,30 22%
2. Kwekerij 52'03'24 2016 Netherlands 2,0 7,1 0,28 16%
3. Valentano 42'35'19 2011 Italy 6,0 17,6 0,34 23%
4. Southill 51'51'31 2016 United Kingdom 4,5 18,1 0,25 16%
5. Hemau 49'02'10 2002 Germany 4,0 18,0 0,22 20%
6. Laarberg 52'06'43 2018 Netherlands 2,2 6,4 0,35 21%
7. Sinnegreide 53'26'04 2018 Netherlands 11,8 12,0 0,98 53%
8. Mühlenfeld 51'27'51 2013 Germany 3,5 24,4 0,14 10%
9. Midden-
Groningen
53'10'48 2019 Netherlands 103,0 121,2 0,85 61%
10. Monreale 37'52'07 2010 Italy 5,0 28,0 0,18 13%
11. Southwick 50'52'50 2015 United Kingdom 48,0 83,4 0,58 35%
Table 4.1. General information on the 11 cases.
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 99
4
Research process
Steenbergen, 2008) and studied accompanying project
documentation. The spatial and document analysis was
analysis was conducted using a case-study protocol, to strengthen
consistency of the analysis by the multiple researchers involved (Yin,
two contrasting cases. The properties that were used to guide the
spatial analysis are presented in section 4.3. Results of the analysis
were presented in maps, text and tables. Data used for the mapping
were design maps as well as recent and historical satellite imagery.
spatial arrangement of SPP and landscape. The document analysis
was mainly based on project reports and websites that were
collected until June 2020. This data was occasionally complemented
4.2.3
HOST LANDSCAPE
Technology Landscape type Previous land use
Fixed tilt Open agricultural Agriculture: highly productive arable land
Fixed tilt Semi-open bocage landscape Agriculture: low grade, tree nursery
Fixed tilt Open agricultural Agriculture: highly productive arable land
Fixed tilt Semi-enclosed valley side farmland Agriculture: extensive, low grade
Fixed tilt Enclosed, agricultural landscape with large
evergreen forests
Browneld: military ammunition depot within
production forest
Fixed tilt Semi-open bocage landscape Agriculture: intensive grassland and corn
production
Fixed tilt Open agricultural Agriculture: grassland
Fixed tilt Semi-open bocage landscape Browneld: gravel mining and nature development
Fixed tilt Open peat landscape Agriculture: arable and grassland
Single-axis tracker Undulated open agricultural landscape Agriculture : extensive, wheat and olive groves
Fixed tilt Enclosed, mixed farmland/woodland Agriculture: arable and grassland
100 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
by insights from case informants. Finally, intermediate results of
observations that took place from May until October 2019.
The results of the individual cases were synthesized to identify
descriptions and numerical date were aggregated using tables
and examined along the categories of the framework for case
analysis (section 4.3). Aggregating the data of all cases helped
iterative manner.
Framework for case analysis
The framework for case analysis was developed deductively (drawing
from literature) and inductively (drawing from the cases) through
was used to analyze the spatial properties of the embedded cases.
The larger host landscape was analyzed as well, as this forms
the backdrop for the spatial properties. Solar infrastructure and
landscape features refer to physical changes in the landscape that
can, to some extent, be examined independently (e.g. Armstrong
visibility, multifunctionality and temporality are emergent properties:
properties of the whole revealed by interactions between individual
These properties of solar landscapes were analyzed by jointly
examining solar infrastructure and landscape features (Lobaccaro et
the solar infrastructure and landscape feature properties (4.3.1),
followed by the procedure for the study of emergent properties
visibility, multifunctionality and temporality (4.3.2).
4.3
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 101
solar infrastructure landscape features
multifunctionality
visibility
temporality
SOLAR LANDSCAPE
4
Solar infrastructure and landscape features
The spatial analysis started by identifying landscape type and
previous land use function. These properties of the host landscape
landscape features.
Solar infrastructure of SPP is discussed extensively in the literature
& Schöbel, 2019). We created an overview of properties found in
For solar infrastructure, the spatial properties are grouped in three
nested levels: the system as a whole, the patch as distinct group of
arrays, and the array
Literature reports on both potential and realized landscape
found in the cases (table 4.2), namely ecological, recreational and
educational, agricultural and water retention features.
4.3.1
Fig. 4.2. Solar infrastructure and landscape feature properties refer to physical
changes that can be examined independently. Visibility, multifunctionality and
temporality are emergent properties of the solar landscape as a whole.
102 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Category Sub-category Property Description Literature
Host
landscape
Landscape
type
Open/enclosed, parcellation/
plot sizes, existing landscape
infrastructure/features, urban
settlements.
(Lobaccaro et al., 2019;
Scognamiglio, 2016)
Previous land
use
Previous land use(s) at the site (Hastik et al., 2015; Turney &
Fthenakis, 2011)
Solar
infrastructure
System Layout The number, size and position of
the patches as part of the solar
system.
(Bevk & Golobič, 2020; Stremke &
Schöbel, 2019)
Response to
parcellation
The response of the system layout
to the original parcellation.
(Stremke & Schöbel, 2019)
Patch Conguration Size, position and alignment of the
of patch within parcellation.
(Bevk & Golobič, 2020; Lobaccaro
et al., 2019; Merida-Rodriguez
et al., 2015; Scognamiglio, 2016;
Stremke & Schöbel, 2019)
Density Density of the array within a patch.
Indicator is the ground-coverage-
ratio (GCR), which is the array
length (L) divided by the row-to-
row pitch (R)
(Bevk & Golobič, 2020; Doubleday,
Choi, Maksimovic, Deline, & Olalla,
2016; Scognamiglio, 2016)
Array Orientation Orientation or azimuth of the
arrays. Traditional orientation
(east-west or north-south) results
in a stripes pattern, but other
types of patterns are possible if
the azimuth is varied.
(Scognamiglio, 2016; Stremke &
Schöbel, 2019)
Dimensions Dimension of array, determined
by: tilt of modules, total height of
the array from the ground; length
(l) of array; width of array; layout of
array (orientation of modules and
number of rows);
(Lobaccaro et al., 2019)
Concurrence Presence of multiple PV
technologies or types of modules
in a single case
(Torres-Sibille et al., 2009)
Materials Color of modules, materials used
in supporting structure.
(Haurant, Oberti, & Muselli, 2011;
Merida-Rodriguez et al., 2015;
Stremke & Schöbel, 2019)
Table 4.2. Framework for the analysis of the host landscape, solar
infrastructure and landscape features.
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 103
4
Category Sub-category Property Description Literature
Landscape
features
Ecological Feature Features that support ecological
functions, for example patches of
wildowers or hedgerows.
(Hernandez et al., 2019; Lovell &
Johnston, 2009; Moore-O’Leary et
al., 2017; Semeraro et al., 2018)
Recreational
and
educational
Feature Features that support recreational
and education functions, such as
community gathering spaces and
outdoor classrooms.
(Lobaccaro et al., 2019;
Scognamiglio, 2016; Semeraro et
al., 2018)
Agricultural Feature Features that support agricultural
functions, such as grazing or
orchards.
(Hernandez et al., 2019;
Scognamiglio, 2016; Semeraro et
al., 2018)
Water
management
Feature Features that support hydrological
functions, such as water retention
areas.
(Hernandez et al., 2019; Lovell &
Johnston, 2009; Moore-O’Leary et
al., 2017)
Emergent properties of solar landscape
Visibility
the visibility of the solar infrastructure (Apostol, McCarty, et al.,
Second, the part of the solar infrastructure visible to on-road
observers was analyzed (Fernandez-Jimenez et al., 2015) and
visibility is the part of the outer edge of the solar infrastructure
to the edge of the case. We distinguish between visible, partly visible
and invisible, based on visibility levels as presented in (Apostol,
4.3.2
4.3.2.1
104 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Palmer, et al., 2017). Visibility from a larger distance and for on-site
to allow a comprehensive comparison of the 11 embedded cases.
Multifunctionality
Solar landscapes provide multiple services and functions (Haines-
2016). We use the term function as it indicates a capacity to
deliver a certain service. In this research, we aimed to identify
deliberately added functions with a certain expected service. The
this comparative analysis of 11 frontrunner cases. The Common
to systematically identify and describe functions (Haines-Young &
Potschin, 2018). For each case, a list of deliberately added functions
during multiple workshops among involved researchers to ensure
cross-case consistency. Using CICES, we analyzed the presence
array multifunctionality (beneath
arrays), patch multifunctionality (on patch area and not underneath
arrays) and adjacent multifunctionality
Temporality
Landscapes change through time, largely driven by societal
demands and expressing changing societal values (Antrop, 2005).
The demand for renewable energy results in the introduction of
energy technologies that transform landscapes within a relatively
considered dynamic. The life-span of SPPs is relatively short (20-30
years) compared to other, more permanent energy technologies,
Others have studied the construction and operation/maintenance
4.3.2.2
4.3.2.3
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 105
first line of observation
project boundary
part of solar infrastructure that is
visible, partly visible or invisible as
observed from first line of observation
a)
adjacent multifunctionality
edge
patch multifunctionality
array multifunctionality
project boundary
b)
former state of host landscape decommissioning stageoperation & maintenance stage
new landscape features reversibility
changing landscape patternsexisting features and/or patterns
landscape features continued and
expanded after decommissioning
including existing
features
4
stages of SPP (Guerin, 2017b, 2017a). This study adopted a wider
temporal perspective and focused on the former state of the host
landscape (i.e. before construction), the case during operation and
documentation was used to identify if and how temporality was
considered in these three stages: (1) inclusion of existing features of
the host landscape in the case, (2) active management of landscape
features during operation and maintenance stage and (3) plans for
the decommissioning stage.
Fig. 4.3. a) Visibility of the solar infrastructure is expressed by the ratio of
the outer edge of the solar infrastructure that is visible, partly visible or
invisible (based on visibility levels as presented in (Apostol, Palmer, et al.,
2017)). b) Multifunctionality beneath the arrays (array multifunctionality),
on the patch area (patch multifunctionality) and next to patches (adjacent
multifunctionality).
Fig. 4.4. Temporal properties: former state of the host landscape, case during
operation/maintenance stage and decommissioning stage.
106 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Results & discussion
parts present the solar infrastructure (4.4.1) and landscape feature
(4.4.2) properties. The third part (4.4.3) takes the perspective
of the solar landscape as a whole and discusses the visibility,
multifunctionality and temporality of the examined cases.
Solar infrastructure
System layout and host landscape pattern
We found that the way the system layout responded to the host
agricultural use, the system size and plot size were key factors in
the way the system layout responded to the pattern of the host
landscape. In only one case the system was entirely located within a
single plot (Monreale). In the other eight cases, solar infrastructure
was distributed over multiple plots, whether the cases were
small (e.g. Sinnegreide, 12 ha) or large (e.g. Gänsdorf, 181 ha). In
these multiple plot cases, the plots of the host landscape either
into a single larger plot (three cases). For some cases, although
parcellation remained intact, the individual plots are potentially not
always recognized as such by observers. Recognition of individual
plots can occur if there is high vegetation along the plot border and
Patch conguration and density
The system layout consists of multiple PV patches that are
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.1.1
4.4.1.2
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 107
RESPONSIVE SPLITIRRESPONSIVE ISLANDS INCIDENTAL
Shape of patch mimics
shape of plot and PV patch
largely covers size of plot.
Original parcellation
structure, both shape and
size remain recognizable.
Potentially high variation in
array length.
Alignment
(of patch to plot)
Type of patch
configuration
Plot border (partially) self-referential Plot border (sometimes
partially self-referential)
Self-referential
Coverage
(of plot by patch)
Cases
Very high (65-90%) High (50-75%) Low (25-50%) Low (35-40%)
Patch shape is
self-referential, variation in
array length is kept to a
minimum. Large part of plot
is covered by PV patch.
Potentially results in left-over
spaces within the plot.
Small part of plot is covered
by PV arrays. The shape is
independent from existing
parcellation.
To site specific elements
Dependent on local
circumstances.
Sinnegreide
Midden-Groningen
Southwick
Gänsdorf
Valentano
Southill
Monreale
[Sinnegreide]
Kwekerij
Laarberg
Hemau
Mühlenfeld
[Southill]
[Midden-Groningen]
[Southwick]
Local circumstances (such
as underground
infrastructure or build
elements) prevent presence
of arrays.
Shape of PV patch matches
shape of plot, but a
substantial part of plot is not
covered by the PV patch.
Result is a split of the plot
and an area next to the patch
that has a different function.
4
responsive con guration, the
size of the PV patch predominantly matched the plot size. For
example, in Sinnegreide, PV arrays with various widths were
intact. Contrastingly, in the irresponsive con guration, the patch
shape was mainly self-referential, which, dependent on the plot
shape, can result in left-over spaces. In Gänsdorf, constructed in
In the split con guration, the patch responded to the shape of the
plot, yet only partially covered the plot area (25-50%). This partial
coverage resulted in a perceived split of the original plot. In Southill
for example, only the south-western part of the plot was used for
arrays, the remainder of the plot consisted of landscape features.
Fig. 4.5. Five types of patch con gurations. Main determinants for the patch
con gurations are alignment to plot and coverage of the plot by the PV patch.
Case names between brackets indicate a certain con guration was identi ed,
but it was secondary to another, primary con guration.
108 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
In the islands conguration, a single patch was divided into sub-
patches and the patch shape was almost entirely self-referential.
The plot was only for a small part (30-45%) covered by arrays. In
in multiple small PV patches dispersed across the plot. These
by Scognamiglio (2016). The irresponsive, split and island
dependent on the previous land-use. In a host landscape with
the variety of functions within a single plot, countering agricultural
upscaling often seen in the countryside (Tscharntke, Klein, Kruess,
hotspots for biodiversity were also excluded for electricity
incidental conguration, was also found in
cases, elements were highlighted that otherwise remained invisible,
for example underground infrastructure became visible as a blank
space between arrays.
The patch density is determined by the width of the array and
the row-to-row-pitch, expressed by the ground-coverage-ratio
(Doubleday et al., 2016) and ranged for the cases between 0,35 and
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 109
4
Sinnegreide and Southwick. In these cases a lower, secondary
ground-coverage-ratio (GCR) was found where a high visibility of
the solar system was expected. For Southwick though, we could not
that a low patch density is pivotal to increase multifunctionality,
no relationship between multifunctionality and patch density was
found (see also 4.4.3.2). Cases with multifunctionality beneath
arrays or on the patch area had a GCR ranging from 0,35 to 0,73,
covering almost the entire spectrum of GCR found in the cases.
Cases
GCR of primary
array type (L/R)
GCR or secondary
array type (L/R)
Location of
secondary array type
1. Gänsdorf 0,45 n/a
2. Kwekerij 0,44 0,41 Most visible patches
for nearby inhabitants.
3. Valentano 0,49 n/a
4. Southill 0,63 n/a
5. Hemau 0,35 n/a
6. Laarberg 0,52 n/a
7. Sinnegreide 0,84 0,69 Most visible patch near
road.
8. Mühlenfeld 0,44 n/a
9. Midden-
Groningen
0,73 n/a
10. Monreale 0,40 n/a
11. Southwick 0,63 0,57 Most visible patch in
west compartment.
Table 4.3. Patch density of the cases expressed by the ground-coverage-ratio
(GCR). In three cases, two dierent array types were found, resulting in two
values for the GCR. The GCR is calculated by dividing the array length (L) by
the row-to-row pitch (R) (Doubleday et al., 2016).
110 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Array orientation, dimensions and materials
On the level of arrays, we found that in all cases the orientation of
the PV arrays was optimized for maximum solar energy generation.
This optimization was for 10 cases east-west oriented arrays facing
south, and for one case with a single-axis tracker north-south
oriented arrays (table 4.4, see also table 4.1). In other words, the
type of pattern was the same for all the cases: parallel stripes
azimuth is considered a key feature of solar landscapes. A variable
azimuth can improve ecological performance or allow the solar
optimal azimuth angles reduce peak loads on the electricity grid and
improved alignment of array and landscape pattern.2 The dimension
variable in three cases (table 4.4). In two cases (the Kwekerij and
with a lower height were closest to where most observers were
of the arrays was caused by partial ground levelling.
The color of the arrays in the cases was the blue commonly seen
in SPP. However, the rapid development of colored modules in
the built environment may also permeate to solar landscapes
shades of blue, as at the time of construction (2002) suppliers
4.4.1.3
2 A recent example in the Netherlands is the project ‘Energy garden’ Assen-Zuid: https://
www.nmfdrenthe.nl/wij-werken-aan/energieneutraal-drenthe/energietuin-assen-zuid/ (in
Dutch)
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 111
4
where concurrence
of supporting structure used: all cases except Hemau used metal
structures, while Hemau used a wooden structure.
Reflections on solar infrastructure across frontrunner SPPs
Southwick illustrates that combining solar infrastructure with
landscape occurs at multiple scales: on the system level, the size
level, individual patches matched the shape of the plots. Even more,
the existing parcellation remained visually recognizable as existing
(lower LAOR value).
Table 4.4. Array orientation, height, materials and concurrence.
Array orientation Array height Array materials Concurrence
Cases
Adjustment
to plot
Optimum for
solar energy
generation
Consistent /
variable
Color
modules
Supporting
structures
1. Gänsdorf x consistent Blue Metal no
2. Kwekerij x variable Blue Metal no
3. Valentano x consistent Blue Metal no
4. Southill x consistent Blue Metal no
5. Hemau x consistent Blue (three
shades)
Wood Yes, three types
of modules and
array types
6. Laarberg x consistent Blue Metal no
7. Sinnegreide x variable Blue Metal no
8. Mühlenfeld x consistent Blue Metal no
9. Midden-
Groningen
x consistent Blue Metal no
10. Monreale x variable Blue Metal no
11. Southwick x consistent Blue Metal no
4.4.1.4
112 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Landscape features
Ecological features
Several ecological features were found in the cases: patches of
nesting and hibernating, wildlife permeable fencing and some cases
incorporated existing vegetation into the system layout (table 4.5).
cases, often combined with screening function at the edge of the
rows or reed zones. In one case, Hemau, an existing monoculture
forest patch was removed to avoid shadow on the arrays. The
growing evidence that SPP contribute to local biodiversity of (Moore-
in ecological features were found, independent of landscape type:
Landscape features dependent on landscape type and other
contextual characteristics become especially important when SPP
become a more familiar phenomenon in the landscape (Oudes &
In ten cases wildlife permeable fencing was realized by either lifting
show that in most cases landscape fragmentation is addressed
vegetation was retained, such as hedgerows or solitary trees, while
it is not uncommon that existing vegetation is removed (Chiabrando
cases address the loss of identity elements, or fragmentation of the
countryside (Chiabrando et al., 2009).
4.4.2
4.4.2.1
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 113
4
Recreational and educational features
educational features were located next to a PV patch, and not
Strand, USA (Scognamiglio, 2016). Recreational and educational
features were for example lookouts, benches and information
enable recreation by adding multiple recreational facilities and
connecting the case to a local recreational network. The other cases
seemed to be addressing occasional or accidental on-site observers.
Table 4.5. Ecological features found in the cases (x = new; [x] = enhanced, not
completely new; (-) = removal).
Ecological features
Cases
Total
Patch of dry vegetation
Patch of wet vegetation
Vegetative buer
Built structures for
roosting, nesting and
hibernating
Wildlife permeable
fencing
Retaining existing
vegetation
1. Gänsdorf 3x x x
2. Kwekerij 5x x x x x yes
3. Valentano 4x x x
4. Southill 3 / [1] x[x] x x yes
5. Hemau 3 / (1) x / (-) x x
6. Laarberg 5 / [1] x x [x] x x yes
7. Sinnegreide 3x x x
8. Mühlenfeld 3x x x yes
9. Midden-Groningen 3x x x
10. Monreale 3x x x
11. Southwick 5 / [1] xx / [x] x x yes
Total 10 /(1) 57 / [3] 510 5
4.4.2.2
114 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Recreational features were absent in Midden-Groningen, Monreale
and Southill.
In the large-scale cases Gänsdorf, Midden-Groningen and Southwick,
the space between the patches was occasionally publicly accessible
(table 4.6). In Gänsdorf and Midden-Groningen, this access was
maintenance respectively), while in Southwick the patch shape was
deliberately adjusted to maintain an existing path. Across cases,
Moreover, in the Kwekerij a path network was created between the
patches and access within the fence is possible on a daily basis. This
study shows that solar landscapes are able to maintain or increase
landscape connectivity (Antrop, 2000).
Table 4.6. Recreational and educational features and accessibility in the cases.
Recreational and educational features Accessibility
Cases
Total
Lookout
Information panel
Benches
Picnic tables
Community
gathering site
Playground features
Car parking
Bicycle parking
Charging point
electric bicycles
Walking path
Node in local
recreational network
No access
Access between
patches
Access within fence
1. Gänsdorf 1x x
2. Kwekerij 9x x x x x x x x x x
3. Valentano 1x x
4. Southill 1x x
5. Hemau 1x x
6. Laarberg 4x x x x x
7. Sinnegreide 2x x x
8. Mühlenfeld 5x x x x x x
9. Midden-Groningen 0x
10. Monreale 0x
11. Southwick 2x x x
Total 35231112134731
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 115
4
Agricultural features
Nine cases included agricultural features, ranging from small fruit
tree orchards to substantial olive groves. This high presence of
agricultural features may point to addressing the loss of agricultural
land (Chiabrando et al., 2009). In Monreale, a large olive grove was
located next to the solar system, and the left-over spaces within the
solar system were planted with olive and almond trees. In Gänsdorf,
the case comprised a part of the former arable land. In three
cases (Laarberg, Hemau and Midden-Groningen) sheep were kept
Laarberg and Sinnegreide) small-scale agriculture targeting the local
Water management features
recuperation (Lobaccaro et al., 2019). Water retention areas were
part of two cases (Laarberg and the Kwekerij). In Laarberg, water
arrays, and the solar infrastructure was adjusted to allow for
recuperated from the PV patches, was stored in a basin to be used
for the adjacent olive grove. In two other cases (Sinnegreide and
Valentano) waterways were enhanced or recovered.
Reflections on landscape features across frontrunner SPPs
Laarberg includes multiple categories of landscape features:
ecological, recreational, agricultural and water retention features
have been combined with electricity generation on only 6,4 ha.
Southill, on the contrary, displays focus on a single category: ecological
restauration is central and to this end human access is limited.
Furthermore, in Southill and Hemau spaces suitable for
electricity generation have been deliberately kept free to achieve
ecological objectives. In other words, spatial arrangement of solar
infrastructure is adjusted and even sub-optimal to accommodate
4.4.2.3
4.4.2.4
4.4.2.5
116 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
other objectives. The Kwekerij and Gänsdorf are examples of synergy
between functions: recreational and ecological values are increased
Solar landscape
Three emergent properties that arise from the combined spatial
arrangement of SPP and landscape – in this paper and elsewhere
conceptualized as solar landscape – are presented in this section:
visibility, multifunctionality and temporality.
Visibility
This section presents the visibility of the solar infrastructure based
on an analysis of the existing and new landscape features at the
edge of the solar landscape.
The edge
The edge of the cases consisted of existing eye-level vegetation
(appendix D) and new edge measures (appendix E), and in each
case the solar infrastructure was completely surrounded by a fence.
Existing eye-level vegetation, such as forest patches or hedgerows,
existing eye-level vegetation along the edge. New edge measures
consisted of landscape features, for example hedgerows or a reed
zone. Three types of measures were applied in the cases: removal of
existing landscape features, enhancing existing landscape features
and new landscape features (appendix E).
Reducing visibility of solar infrastructure
In all cases, the visibility was deliberately reduced, either through
siting within existing vegetation or through new edge measures with
et al., 2015). The highest ratio of a visible edge in a single case was
4.4.3
4.4.3.1
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 117
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11) Southwick
10) Monreale
9) Midden-Groningen
8) Mühlenfeld
7) Sinnegreide
6) Laarberg
5) Hemau
4) Southill
3) Valentano
2) Kwekerij
1) Gänsdorf
Average
Visib le (almost - f ully) Partly vi sible No t vis ible (a lmost - fully)
4
low visibility with few new landscape features and many existing
landscape features. Existing vegetation, sometimes enhanced, was
used for screening purposes. This combination supports the notion
that careful site selection is an important aspect to achieve low
visibility without the need for many new edge measures (Apostol,
patch into the lower lying part of the plot reduced the visibility from
Monreale, Midden-Groningen, Sinnegreide, Valentano and Gänsdorf
combined a low amount of existing eye-level vegetation along the
edge (< 11%) with a high degree of new screening features (85-
100%). Introduction of eye-level vegetation that is not typically found
Fig. 4.6. Visibility of the solar infrastructure as observed from road
infrastructure closest to the case, the rst line of observation.
118 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
a) b) c) d) e)
Merida-Rodriguez et al., 2015). In some cases, screening measures
provided other functions as well. For example, in Gänsdorf an
orchard was planted to reduce visibility from the road and at the
same time produce fruit.
Enhancing visibility of the solar infrastructure
The overall reduction of visibility was contrasted by measures
that deliberately enhanced visibility. In Gänsdorf, the Kwekerij,
lookout, while the latter two cases feature an area at the edge of the
case that provided amenities for visitors to stay for a short period of
point visibility of the solar infrastructure is enhanced. The latter
which can be part of a place branding approach (Frantál et al.,
2018, p. 92). This research shows that the cases addressed visibility
Fig. 4.7. Measures enhancing visibility: lookout in Gänsdorf (a), Mühlenfeld
(b, picture by Florian Becker) and the Kwekerij (c), and benches near a clear
view to the solar infrastructure in Laarberg (d, picture by Coos van Ginkel) and
Sinnegreide (e). All pictures by authors unless otherwise indicated.
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 119
4
al., 2005), and at the same time aimed to reframe visibility from a
mainly negative impact into a potential positive impact.
Multifunctionality
Solar landscapes that provide functions additional to electricity
generation can be considered multifunctional. In this section, we
further detail the multifunctionality of the cases by examining
the presence and number of functions, as well as three types of
assessment of multifunctionality.
Presence and number of functions
the 65 functions in the CICES model of ecosystem services, 18 were
found in the cases (appendix F). The function Providing habitats for
wild plants and animals
all cases, besides Solar power (4.3.2.4). Two other functions were
Pollinating our fruit trees and
other plants (2.2.2.1) and Screening unsightly things (2.1.2.3). Small-
scale agricultural functions, such as grazing sheep (1.1.1.3), food
production (1.1.1.1) were found in nine cases. These functions
earlier research, such as habitat destruction and fragmentation,
regulating and seven were cultural functions. All three types of
functions were found in all cases. The total number of functions
No clear relationship was found between the number of functions
and the land area occupation ratio (LAOR, table 4.1) (Scognamiglio,
2016). Cases with a high LAOR (highest ratio found was 61%) still
4.4.3.2
120 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1) Gänsdorf
2) Kwekerij
3) Valentano
4) Southill
5) Hemau
6) Laarberg
7) Sinnegreide
8) Mühlenfeld
9) Midden-Groningen
10) Monreale
11) Southwick
!"#$%&'()')"*+,-(*.'-*'.(/0&'/0*1.+02%.
Provisioning functions Regulating functions Cul tur al fu ncti ons
5
3
2
6
5
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
2
4
2
1
1
3
2
1
4
2
2
4
1
5
4
2
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
46810 12 14 16
Land area occupation ratio (LAOR)
Number of functions
01_Gansdorf 02_Kwekerij 03_Valent ano 04_Southill
05_Hemau 06_Laarberg 07_Sinnegreide 08_Muhlenfeld
09_MiddenGroningen 10_M onreale 11_Sout hwick
10
8
536
2
4
11
7
1
9
Fig. 4.9. The number of functions compared to the land use energy
intensity, expressed by Land Area Occupation Ratio. 1=Gänsdorf;
2=Kwekerij; 3=Valentano; 4=Southill; 5=Hemau; 6=Laarberg; 7=Sinnegreide;
8=Mühlenfeld; 9=Midden-Groningen; 10=Monreale; 11=Southwick.
Fig. 4.8. The number of functions in each case, divided over provisioning,
regulating and cultural functions.
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 121
a) b) c)
4
supported multiple functions, although these cases represented the
Three types: array, patch and adjacent multifunctionality
Functions were located beneath arrays (array multifunctionality),
on the patch area (patch multifunctionality) and adjacent to
multifunctionality allow for interactivity between functions (e.g.
cases and was often a form of multiple land use or co-location with
multifunctionality applied to solar infrastructure and as multiple
land use within the project boundary (Lobaccaro et al., 2019).
On average, the cases contained 28,9% adjacent multifunctionality,
19,8% patch multifunctionality and 11,6% array multifunctionality,
surface was allotted to multifunctionality. In three of these cases
(Valentano, Hemau and Midden-Groningen), this high share is
for a large part caused by harvesting the meadow beneath and
Fig. 4.10. a) array multifunctionality in Mühlenfeld (picture by Florian
Becker): shade tolerating vegetation and inverters beneath arrays; b) patch
multifunctionality in Laarberg: sheep grazing on the lowered patch area
that also functions as water retention area; c) adjacent multifunctionality in
Gänsdorf: hedgerow and wildower eld developed next to the PV patch.
122 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11) S outhw ick
10) M onre ale
9) Midden-Groningen
8) Mühlenfeld
7) Sinnegreide
6) La arbe rg
5) H emau
4) Southill
3) Valentano
2) Kw ekerij
1) Gänsdorf
Av er age
Array multifunctionality (%) Patch multifu nctionality (%) Adj ace nt mult ifun cti onal ity (% )
Groningen, multifunctionality is arranged as a sharp spatial
distinction between the high-density PV patches and livestock (array
and patch multifunctionality), and ecological features in the edge
(adjacent multifunctionality). The large share of multifunctionality
in the other four cases is explained by a diverse set of features:
wet ecological corridor (Monreale). The cases with high shares of
array and patch multifunctionality indicate the potential to increase
generation. High shares of adjacent multifunctionality were found in
Monreale, Southill, the Kwekerij, Valentano, Laarberg and Hemau.
With adjacent multifunctionality, however, land otherwise available
for electricity generation is used for other functions. This latter type
of multifunctionality therefore reduces the overall land use energy
intensity of the solar landscape (Scognamiglio, 2016).
Fig. 4.11. Shares of land surface allotted to array, patch and adjacent
multifunctionality.
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 123
4
Assessment of multifunctionality
The number of functions and the land surface allocated to
multifunctionality are useful indicators to compare SPP on
multifunctionality, yet they do not assess functions. Assessment
of ecosystem functions and services needs to provide insight in
comparison to the baseline situation (Hastik et al., 2015). Such an
mix of methods and tools on multiple scales of analysis (Picchi
et al., 2019). Without advancing such assessment methods for
solar landscapes, cases may emerge that bear the promise of
multifunctionality, but only deliver minor provisioning, regulating
use of performance indicators based on installed capacity or
Using these indicators, most of the cases in this study will be
outperformed by SPP that are optimized for electricity generation.
These assessments and their associated indicators will need to be
supplemented by other indicators that capture multifunctionality.
Temporality
Temporality in the cases was addressed in 8 out of 11 cases by
attention for landscape elements and patterns present in the host
landscape, active management during operation and maintenance
stage and landscape plans for the decommissioning stage.
the former state of the host landscape were included in operation
and maintenance stage, with the potential to extend into
the past’ and carry symbolic and historical value (Antrop, 2005).
Elements were often vegetation, such as hedgerows or trees, but
also former military bunkers were preserved (Hemau). In two
cases (Gänsdorf and Midden-Groningen) existing parcellation was
explicitly considered to maintain landscape character during the
operation and maintenance stage.
4.4.3.3
124 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Active management of landscape features during operation and
maintenance stage
Kwekerij, Southill and Hemau). In these cases, monitoring and
making based on changing monitoring results and contextual
circumstances. A distinctive example is the Kwekerij, where
changing demands by local stakeholders resulted in the addition
of a vegetable garden in a later stage. On the contrary, other
cases indicate a lack of active management and appeared not to
be resilient to changing circumstances. In Monreale for example,
the olive grove adjacent to the solar system is currently in a poor
state. This olive grove was supposed to be used for local olive oil
production, but it seems it was not well embedded in the local
socio-economic context. In Southwick, original plans involved
executed, appear to have been abandoned following a change in
the ownership of the SPP.
Plans for the decommissioning stage were mentioned in six cases,
cases (Southill, Midden-Groningen and Southwick) plan to reverse
the site into the former state of the landscape, although it is not
always clear if this concerns removal of both solar infrastructure
and landscape features. In Gänsdorf, rather than decommissioning,
the plan is to continue combining electricity generation with habitat
plan will result in the recycling of the existing energy landscape
landscape features in operation and maintenance stage supported
the plans for the decommissioning stage. In the Kwekerij, local
maintenance stage, and a larger park will be available to them once
the solar infrastructure will be dismantled. In Monreale, cultivation
for agricultural use in the decommissioning stage. Concluding,
while in eight cases the temporal character of the cases was
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 125
4
considered, only two cases used landscape features to enhance
future use of the sites, beyond site restoration (Sinha et al., 2018).
Thus, in most cases use of landscape features in decommissioning
stage is not explicitly considered, which in turn might adversely
energy and can potentially result in repowering or abandonment of
renewable energy technologies (Windemer, 2019).
Reflections on emergent properties across frontrunner solar
landscapes
Although most cases pay attention to visibility, multifunctionality
and temporality, the spatial arrangement of each case illustrates
varying degrees of integration between solar infrastructure and
landscape features. In the Kwekerij, these are entwined to a degree
that the case is neither just a solar power plant nor just a public
to allow visitors to walk between the arrays, height of the arrays
has been adjusted to address visibility concerns of neighboring
residents. In Gänsdorf however, solar infrastructure and landscape
features are strictly separated: additional functions are not found
within, but next to the PV patches.
Whether landscape features are sustained beyond the
decommissioning of the solar infrastructure depends on the type
of the features. Features enhancing landscape character (e.g.
Southwick) or features able to provide a function independent
of solar infrastructure in the future (e.g. Kwekerij) are likely to be
sustained. In Midden-Groningen, on the contrary, some of the
landscape features are unfamiliar to the host landscape and their
existence will be less certain when the SPP is decommissioned.
4.4.3.4
126 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Conclusions
This study aimed to contribute to the understanding of solar
landscapes by examining 11 frontrunner cases across Europe,
what are the visual,
functional and temporal properties of frontrunner solar landscapes
in Europe?
The examined frontrunner solar landscapes use a combined spatial
arrangement of solar infrastructure and landscape features to
address societal concerns. Solar infrastructure operates on system,
patch and array level and landscape features are categorized as
ecological, recreational and educational, agricultural and water
cases visibility is simultaneously enhanced in dedicated areas in
combination with recreational amenities. Cases contain between
and in 9 out of 11 cases pollinating, screening and small-scale
character is considered in some way, yet only two cases explicitly
introduce landscape features to enhance future use of the sites.
Across the cases, our analysis of spatial properties shows how
contemporary concerns about SPP, such as visual impact, land
use competition and the end-of-life stage are addressed. Next to
this case-study.
First, although the cases altogether present a portfolio of measures
responding to societal concerns, the full potential of the three
key properties is yet to be explored. The orientation of PV arrays,
for example, is optimized for maximum electricity generation in
all cases. Alternative array orientation may support maintaining
existing landscape patterns and, simultaneously, reducing peak
load on the electricity grid. Another example is the presence of
4.5
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 127
4
character of the host landscapes.
provisioning, regulating or cultural functions but can, at the same
time, destroy existing landscape patterns. Furthermore, a high
share of land solely dedicated to ecosystem functions increases
the total land area needed to generate a set amount of electricity.
These examples show the need to assess both individual properties
as well as the SPP as a whole. Where existing research on additional
in this research resulted in properties and initial indicators to
properties and indicators can become part of environmental impact
assessments, multi-criteria decision analysis and other methods
to asses not only negative, but also positive impacts of SPP. For
example, assessment of enhancing visibility (e.g. through dedicated
recreational areas with clear views on solar infrastructure) may
enrich impact assessments that consider visibility as a negative
property exclusively. Yet, other properties related to visual impact,
account. Similar, including properties such as temporality in multi-
criteria decision analysis may favor alternative proposals of SPP that
allow continuation of existing landscape features.
Third, as individual cases diverge in their attention for certain
properties, further distinctions within the concept ‘solar landscape’
can be made. To illustrate, some cases focus mainly on visibility
and only marginally on multifunctionality. In addition, some cases
focus on provisioning and regulating functions, while others focus
types of solar landscapes may help to conceive solar power plants
and society at large.
128 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the experts that helped to identify the
cases, and to Florian Becker and Coos van Ginkel (both Wageningen
University) and Paolo Picchi (Amsterdam Academy of Architecture)
for their assistance in the data collection and analysis. Furthermore,
we thank Martine Uyterlinde (Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency) and Adri van den Brink (Wageningen University)
for reviewing an earlier version of this paper, and the members of
the Dutch National Consortium ‘Solar energy and Landscape’ and
the Solar Research Program (Wageningen University) for providing
valuable feedback during presentations of intermediate results.
Last, we like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful
Frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe | 129
4
Semi-transparent PV panels generate electricity, improve the micro-climate
and protect the raspberries below from extreme weather conditions.
Agrivoltaic Babberich, Gelderland, the Netherlands (source: author).
Chapter 5
Emergent typology of solar power
plants: How societal considerations
start to shape renewable energy
landscapes
Dirk Oudes
Adri van den Brink
Sven Stremke
A modied version of this chapter has been accepted with minor revisions at
Energy Research & Social Science
132 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Abstract
Development of solar power plants (SPP) is no longer limited to
remote and low population density areas, but now include urban
and rural landscapes where people live, work and recreate. Societal
considerations are starting to give rise to a new generation of SPPs
electricity production, these multi-purpose SPP include agricultural
or preserve cultural heritage. In this paper, we systematically
purpose of this research is to create and test an SPP typology that
can support more evidence-based and transparent processes, from
propose a typology that consists of four dimensions: energy,
economic, nature and landscape. These dimensions lead to three
main types, mixed-production, nature inclusive, landscape inclusive,
and their combinations. This typology adds to the existing energy
landscape vocabulary, provides direction to and ingredients for
(local) decision-making on solar energy landscapes. In doing so,
the research supports the development of energy landscapes
that contribute to global renewable energy targets with increasing
attention to societal considerations.
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 133
5
Introduction
Solar power plants (SPP) contribute to achieving renewable energy
targets and mitigating climate change. SPPs are no longer limited to
remote and low population density areas, but appear in urban and
experience of these landscapes by people is changed by photovoltaic
(PV) panels, inverters, transformers and other supporting electrical
landscapes are created. These are conceptualized as (solar) ‘energy
increasingly understood as co-constructions of social and material
relations, notably in the ERSS special issue Spatial Adventures in
Energy Studies
Recent publications highlight the need to include a broad set of
societal considerations in the creation of solar energy landscapes,
Societal considerations such as land use competition (Chiabrando
to increase while SPP become a major player to meet renewable
energy targets.
Societal considerations regarding SPPs, as with any other energy
infrastructure, are commonly discussed during the planning
and design process amongst stakeholders (Picchi et al., 2019).
Currently, societal considerations are often used to distinguish
between suitable and unsuitable sites for SPP development. Bridge
(2018) refers to this siting as a strategy of territorial dierentiation:
5.1
134 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
based upon local characteristics and geographical conditions
according to considerations of suitability. Suitable locations are
often those with favorable technical conditions (e.g. high solar
irradiance, available grid capacity) and minor negative impacts.
Minimizing negative impact is done by identifying low-cost land (e.g.
Milbrandt, Heimiller, Perry, & Field, 2014), minimizing ecological
2015). For SPPs, low impact locations often come down to degraded
or contaminated land, peripheral areas, infrastructure, surface
Park, & Johnson, 2021).
In this paper we therefore turn our attention to a strategy where
societal considerations change the nature of the SPP itself (Bridge
et al., 2013). Stakeholder values and preferences have started to
give rise to SPPs with multiple purposes, instead of only electricity
production (Oudes & Stremke, 2021). These multi-purpose SPPs
produce renewable electricity, but at the same time include
Wolsink, 2017).
As a result of including societal considerations, multi-purpose
are optimized for maximum electricity production. Spatial form in
this paper refers to the material and perceivable energy landscape
interventions to achieve other purposes. For example, elevated
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 135
5
arrays to enable agricultural functions beneath PV panels.
Developing parts of the SPP project area as nature, uncovered
by PV panels, is another example of an alternative spatial form.
what Bridge (2018) refers to as material dierentiation, where the
spatial properties of an SPP function as markers to “specify certain
to foster the inclusion of societal considerations in evidence-based
Several studies have described SPPs with alternative spatial forms
that attend to societal considerations. Together, these studies
provide for suitable habitats (Blaydes, Potts, Whyatt, & Armstrong,
between SPP, landscape patterns and landscape perception
studies have focused on co-locating PV with agriculture, also known
type of SPP is characterized by a synergetic relationship between
crop or livestock and PV, as the latter improves microclimatic
SPP. Hernandez et al. (2019) has presented an overview of techno-
ecological synergies of solar energy with ‘recipient systems’ (land,
food, water and the built environment). Frantal et al. (2018) have
which SPP, that provides synergy with for example infrastructure,
other land uses and cultural heritage. Similarly, Burke (2018) has
136 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
areas. However, most of the existing literature has either discussed
individual types of SPP in detail without considering other types
or has presented a typology of land use combinations, with little
attention to spatial form. Existing literature lacks insights in the
interaction between societal considerations and the spatial form
of SPPs. Such insights, however, can support local participatory
planning and design processes as well as evaluation and decision-
making for SPPs.
societal considerations. The purpose of this research is to create
and test an SPP typology that can support more evidence-based
and evaluation. Comparative case analysis, expert interviews and
We focus on the latter because they have received most criticism,
compared to for example SPPs on water or rooftops. Our research
which societal considerations materialize in Solar Power
Plants and what types of multi-purpose SPP can be dened to support
evidence-based and transparent planning and design of SPPs?
Section 5.2 presents the methods and materials of this study that
entails a case study, literature analysis as well as development
and testing of the typology. The typology of solar power plants is
presented in section 5.3, followed by a discussion in section 5.4 and
conclusions in section 5.5.
Case study and literature analysis
We used a comparative case study and literature analysis to
examine how societal considerations start to shape the spatial form
5.2
5.2.1
Methods & materials
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 137
5
Axsen, & Sorrell, 2018). Initially, over 30 cases in Germany, the
consultation with both spatial and solar energy experts and internet
searches. We asked the experts for cases of exemplary SPP that
accommodate multiple purposes (e.g. biodiversity, recreational or
provided by experts were supplemented with award winning SPPs
we selected cases that varied with regard to key spatial properties,
country, scale and local context (e.g. landscape type, urban or
rural setting). We excluded cases (1) where other purposes in
addition to electricity production were limited or absent, (2) where
other purposes were envisioned but not realized, and (3) where
20 cases (tablea5.1) were analyzed for their spatial properties.
The spatial analysis was performed on the basis of an existing
analytical framework that focuses on the interaction between solar
infrastructure and the host landscape, visibility, multifunctionality
and temporality of SPP (Oudes & Stremke, 2021). Data used were
project documentation, including design drawings, satellite imagery
The spatial properties found in the cases were related to key societal
literature, for example studies examining the development of SPP
Turney & Fthenakis, 2011).
138 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Development and testing of typology
The typology was developed by specifying similar sets of spatial
ways to organize the sets of spatial properties by multiple iterations
5.2.2
Table 5.1. The selected cases. The project area includes all functions
associated with the spatial development. For case no. 20, Agri-PV has currently
been implemented on only half of the fruit farm.
#Case Country
Year
constructed
Power of PV
system (MWp)
Project
size (ha)
1Solarfeld Gänsdorf Germany 2009 54,0 180,9
2Solarpark De Kwekerij Netherlands 2016 2,0 7,1
3Valentano Italy 2011 6,0 17,6
4Southill Solar United Kingdom 2016 4,5 18,1
5Solarpark Hemau Germany 2002 4,0 18,0
6Zonnepark Laarberg Netherlands 2018 2,2 6,4
7Sinnegreide Netherlands 2018 11,8 12,0
8Solarpark Mühlenfeld Germany 2013 3,5 24,4
9Zonnepark Midden-Groningen Netherlands 2019 103,0 121,2
10 Monreale Italy 2010 5,0 28,0
11 Southwick Estate Solar Farm United Kingdom 2015 48,0 83,4
12 Energielandschaft Morbach Germany 2002 4,5 36,3
13 San Gabriele Italy 2009 4,0 14,5
14 Energie- und Technologiepark
Eggebek
Germany 2011 83,5 449,0
15 Merston Community Solar Farm United Kingdom 2016 10,0 25,0
16 Zonnepark ‘t Oor Netherlands 2019 2,1 4,2
17 Eco-zonnepark Ubbena Netherlands 2017 0,6 2,0
18 Sawmills Solar Farm United Kingdom 2015 6,5 31,0
19 Verwood Solar Farm United Kingdom 2015 20,4 44,0
20 Babberich Agri-PV Netherlands 2020 2,7 3,4
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 139
5
economic, nature and landscape. The typology has been further
supplemented and elaborated in an iterative process of synthesizing
the case evidence with feedback from case informants and experts.
Feedback from case informants was gathered using a short
development of the SPP interpreted the dimensions. As this paper
asked to give their interpretation on the economic, nature and
landscape dimension. All case informants have been involved in the
development of one of the cases, for example as initiator, designer
or developer. We were able to identify and approach informants
from 16 of the 20 cases of which 14 (response rate 87%) responded
asked to characterize their SPP by distributing 100 points across the
economic, nature and landscape dimension and explain their key
arguments for this characterization.
In addition to the case informants, experts were interviewed
with the purpose to test the typology. We selected 17 experts
from an active community of professionals and academics in
the Netherlands that is engaged with the spatial development of
SPPs. Selected experts were expected to have an overview of the
development of multi-purpose SPPs. We were able to interview 14
of these experts (response rate 83%), with backgrounds in solar
industry (4), design & consultancy (4), academia (3), government (2)
and NGO (1). The interviews were conducted and recorded using
Microsoft Teams. The semi-structured interview protocol was tested
once in advance and allowed experts to use an SPP case well known
to them to engage with the typology. We used cognitive interviewing
to understand how the experts interpreted and related the spatial
properties of their case to the typology (Willis & Artino, 2013). By
discussing the expert case, we received feedback on the dimensions,
the types and the spatial properties. Of the 14 experts, 10 discussed
a case that was not part of the initial case study, introducing new
case evidence to the development of the typology. The interview
140 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
the types and the completeness, comprehensibility and applicability
of the spatial properties and types.
The transcribed interviews were analyzed to identify patterns
across the expert feedback. The feedback on the properties was
used to complement and specify the case analysis framework.
Feedback on the dimensions and types was used to inform our
understanding of the typology. Major comments by multiple experts
were incorporated in the typology, minor comments by one or two
experts were addressed by improving the description of the types.
Typology of solar power plants
This section starts with the societal considerations that we observed
shaping the spatial form of the cases, forming the foundation of the
typology (5.3.1). Following the foundations, the typology and the
a description of the individual types (5.3.3 - 5.3.6).
Foundations for the typology
of the literature that discusses these considerations can be
found in appendix G. Nature considerations mainly represented
Cases attended to these considerations by retaining existing
the layout of solar infrastructure by, for example, decreasing
the patch density, is also a way to retain or improve the living
Economic considerations included
economy and grid capacity. Several cases included one or multiple
productive land use functions in the spatial form of the SPP, in
addition to solar electricity production. Landscape considerations
5.3
5.3.1
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 141
5
Fig. 5.1. Key societal considerations (left) and spatial properties of cases
(right). The societal considerations are categorized into three groups: nature,
economic and landscape. The spatial properties have been identied in the
cases and are thematically grouped: properties are predominantly related to
solar infrastructure, to visibility, to multifunctionality or to temporality in line
with the analytical framework of (Oudes & Stremke, 2021).
142 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
perception by landscape users. These considerations materialized
in the cases through, for example, careful interaction between solar
infrastructure and landscape, addressing visibility and providing
recreational and education functions for local landscape users.
The spatial properties were based upon earlier research (Oudes &
Stremke, 2021) and categorized as properties that are predominantly
related to solar infrastructure, visibility, multifunctionality and
case evidence, resulted in the textual adjustment of nine properties,
addition of one property and splitting of a property into two separate
or landscape considerations, while other properties can be linked to
multiple groups of considerations. For each of the studied cases, the
properties of spatial form, or the spatial properties, can be found in
appendix H.
Together, inclusion of nature, economic and landscape
considerations in the spatial form of SPPs represent three separate
dimensions of SPPs that constitute the basis of the typology.
Four dimensions: energy, economic, nature and landscape
landscape dimension as expressions of societal considerations in
the spatial form of SPPs. Together with the energy dimension of
electricity production, these dimensions shape the spatial form of
spatial form of an SPP can be examined and discussed.
The energy dimension forms the basis of a multi-purpose SPP and
– in relationship to spatial form – is expressed by energy density.
Energy density is indicated by, for example, yearly production per
hectare (in MWh/ha/y), power capacity per hectare (in MWp/ha) or
spatial footprint of the system (land area occupation ratio, LAOR)
is illustratively used in this section because it allows a comparison
5.3.2
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 143
5
This indicator does not, however, account for projects where
Often, energy density of multi-purpose SPPs is lower compared to
SPPs that focus only on maximizing electricity production. Attention
for the other three dimensions decreases energy density because
With the energy dimension as basis, an SPP addresses societal
considerations by a predominant focus on either the economic,
nature or landscape dimension. Such a focus leads to three main
types: nature inclusive, landscape inclusive and mixed production
Fig. 5.2. Four dimensions of solar power plants: energy, economic, nature
and landscape dimension. The energy dimension forms the basis of the SPP
and is expressed by energy density, in this gure by the land area occupation
ratio (LAOR) (Oudes & Stremke, 2021; Scognamiglio, 2016). The economic
dimension comprises economic activities in addition to electricity production.
The nature dimension consists of spatial properties related to nature. For the
landscape dimension the same logics apply.
144 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Table 5.2. Three main types of SPP: mixed production, nature inclusive and
landscape inclusive SPP.
Main type Description Key spatial properties Spatial variations
Mixed
production
(MP SPP)
SPP is optimized for
maximum economic
prot by mixing
electricity production
with other protable
land use functions.
- Crop production
- Other renewable
technology present
- Other commercial
activities present
- Agrivoltaics (agriphotovoltaics);
- Hybrid energy systems
- Energy – technology parks
Nature
inclusive
(Ni SPP)
SPP is developed
to improve living
conditions of ora
and fauna. This may
lead to a suboptimal
system layout for
electricity production.
- Ecological features
beneath, between
or adjacent to solar
infrastructure
- Built faunal structures
- Adjusted fence
permeability
- Ecological features next to a dense PV
patch (adjacent multifunctionality)
- Ecological features beneath or between
PV panels in a porous PV patch (array or
patch multifunctionality)
Landscape
inclusive
(Li SPP)
SPP is developed
to improve physical
landscape elements
or patterns and/
or the use and
experience of the
SPP by landscape
users. This may lead
to a suboptimal
system layout for
electricity production.
- Adjustment of system
layout to existing plots
- Landscape aligned
patch conguration
- Reduced visibility
- Educational features
- Recreational facilities
- Recreational or educational features
or a zone that considers visibility
next to a dense PV patch (adjacent
multifunctionality)
- Recreational or educational features
next to a porous PV patch or multiple
smaller patches (array or patch
multifunctionality)
- Active engagement of landscape users
through recreation and education
- Non-active engagement of landscape
users;
- Preservation of existing landscape
elements
- Restoration of existing landscape
elements
- Transformation of the existing
landscape and introduction of new
landscape elements
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 145
5
In general, the presence of multiple key spatial properties (table 5.2)
dimensions indicates the main type for an SPP.
Based upon the case study, the expert interviews and the responses
from the case informants, attention to the economic, nature and
landscape dimension is expressed by a combination of the number
and the intensity or scale of the properties. An SPP with many spatial
considerations, preferences or opportunities that stakeholders have
included in the spatial form. At the same time, a consideration can
also materialize by including only one or two large-scale features. For
example, in Southill Solar (United Kingdom), the local sustainability
cooperative decided to dedicate more than half of the project
area to biodiversity improvements. Furthermore, case informants
used terms such as ‘marginal’ and ‘small-scale’ to indicate certain
project as a whole. In addition, seven experts mentioned the aspect
of scale, an ecologist for example argued “more space [for nature]
is always better from a nature perspective”. This feedback makes
clear that attention to a certain dimension is not only the presence
of an certain feature, but also its scale in comparison to the other
dimensions. To convey the typology in a systematic and transparent
way, the examples in the remainder of the results section only show
the number of properties related to the dimensions.
In addition to the main types, the cases often expressed a mix of
dimensions. These combination types are nature and landscape
inclusive, nature inclusive mixed production and landscape inclusive
mixed production. Nature and landscape inclusive SPP followed
directly from the case study, while the other two combinations were
stressed by several experts during the interviews and supported by
projects still under construction. In the following, we will describe
the three main types, mixed-production (5.3.3), nature inclusive
(5.3.4), landscape inclusive (5.3.5) and the types that combine
multiple dimensions (5.3.6).
146 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Mixed production SPPs
functions. Based upon the case study, we found three major land
use functions in addition to solar energy generation: agriculture,
other renewable energy technologies and other commercial
activities related to the SPP or the site. In SPPs combined with
agriculture, often termed ‘agrivoltaics’, PV panels are located
between or above some form of agriculture, either crop production
or livestock. In a fruit farm in Babberich (the Netherlands), the solar
developer placed semi-transparent PV panels above the fruit trees
synergy between the two productive functions as key arguments for
this spatial variation (or sub-type) of MP SPP. In other variations of
MP SPPs, multiple (renewable) energy technologies are co-located,
for instance wind turbines and biomass facilities. Co-location of
multiple renewable energy technologies may include a shared use
of grid capacity, but it is also used for place branding: Eggebek, a
former military airport in Germany, presents itself as an ‘energy and
technology park’ and includes other commercial activities related to
renewable energy technologies. In this case, the SPP is combined
with wind energy testing and research, a biogas facility and other
companies related to renewable energy.
Nature inclusive SPPs
Nature inclusive Solar Power Plants (Ni SPP) improve the
electricity production. Key characteristics are space for ecological
features (e.g. habitats), creating the proper conditions for these
ecological features (e.g. permeability of the fence), and the proper
meadows, fruit orchards) and retaining existing vegetation. In both
situations, stakeholders may decide to adjust the scale and layout of
5.3.3
5.3.4
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 147
5
PV infrastructure to this end. The patch density may be decreased,
existing trees are retained or ecologically valuable areas are kept
free from PV panels. These two models of creating space for habitats
dense PV patch with an adjacent area for ecological features, or a
relatively porous PV patch with ecological features mainly between
or beneath PV panels. The former exhibits adjacent multifunctionality
while the latter exhibits array or patch multifunctionality. Providing
the right conditions for the (created or retained) ecological features
is related to accessibility: adjusting the permeability of the perimeter
(usually a fence) to deny or allow access to certain species, depending
on the ecological targets and potentially limiting access for humans
when sensitive species are targeted. Experts stressed that proper
management of SPPs is needed to achieve the set ecological targets
and sustain them through time.
An example of a nature inclusive SPP is solar park Hemau in
that lies within a forest area. Existing areas with high ecological
Fig. 5.3. Babberich Agri-PV in the east of the Netherlands. Left: the high number of economic
properties in Babberich illustrates the focus on economic considerations. Right: Raspberries grow
in an improved micro-climate and the panels protect the fruit from extreme weather conditions.
The semi-transparent panels generate electricity and leave enough solar irradiation for the
growth of the raspberries.
148 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
ecological areas have been created. The case informant argued the
focus on the nature dimension depends not only on these spatial
features, but also on securing maintenance directed at improving
ecological conditions.
Landscape inclusive SPPs
Landscape inclusive Solar Power Plants (Li SPPs) improve physical
landscape elements, landscape patterns, or/and the use and
experience of the SPP by landscape users. The experts stressed
dense vegetation around a large solar park to hide it from sight”.
Indicatively, three sets of variations in spatial form emerge. First,
similar to nature inclusive SPPs, landscape inclusive SPPs reserve
space for functions other than electricity production beneath
or between PV panels (array or patch multifunctionality, e.g.
walking paths between PV panels) or next to PV panels (adjacent
multifunctionality, e.g. a lookout next to PV panels).
Second, variations in active and non-active engagement with
landscape users. Li SPP that actively engage landscape users include
recreational or educational features. This may vary from providing
a visual overview of the SPP from constructed vantage points,
to providing public access to the SPP for leisure and community
Contrastingly, for Li SPP that not actively engage landscape users,
stakeholders decided to keep the SPP (partly) away from the perception
of landscape users. Such SPPs use for example local landscape
elements or low PV arrays to reduce visibility of the PV panels.
The third set of variations involves the kind of interventions done
in the existing landscape. Some cases focus on preserving existing
landscape features, other cases on restoring landscape features
that were present in the past and again others on transforming the
site using new landscape features.
5.3.5
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 149
5
An example of a landscape inclusive SPP is Southwick Estate Solar
mainly materialized next to the PV patches, focusing on preserving
the existing hedgerow structure and plot shapes. The existing
hedgerow structure has been improved to reduce the visibility on
the PV panels. This is therefore an example of an Li SPP with non-
active engagement of landscape users.
Fig. 5.4. Solar park Hemau in Germany, near Regensburg. Left: Hemau illustrates some attention
to landscape and economic considerations, but most measures are taken for nature. The area
covered by PV panels is relatively low because of the high row-to-row distance and areas kept
free of PV panels to preserve and improve ecological conditions. Right: wet vegetative patches
have been created within the SPP.
Fig. 5.5. Southwick Estate Solar Farm, north of Portsmouth, United Kingdom. Left: Southwick
pays some attention for nature and economic considerations, but exceeded in the amount
of landscape properties. Right: PV patches are aligned in the landscape to maintain existing
vegetation intact and reduce visibility.
150 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Combinations of economic, nature and landscape dimension
In addition to SPPs with a single focus on the economic, nature or
landscape dimension, attention to diverse societal considerations
leads to a combination of multiple dimensions. Departing from the
landscape, nature-landscape and economic-nature-landscape can
be distinguished. The case study revealed multiple examples of
SPPs that focus on both the nature and landscape dimension. In line
with the other types, this combination type is referred to as a nature
& landscape inclusive SPP.
Nature and landscape inclusive SPPs attend to both nature and
landscape with spatial features that are synergetic or co-located
without synergy. Synergetic nature and landscape features work
example, using native vegetation to reduce visibility, or using
SPPs and Li SPPs, spatial variations such as (non) active engagement
of landscape users and adjacent or array/patch multifunctionality
can be distinguished.
A few cases showed attention to all dimensions. Monreale (Italy)
was developed as a demonstration project and includes an olive
grove for local olive oil production (economic dimension), an
ecological corridor (nature dimension) and aligns with existing
landscape patterns (landscape dimension). In addition, one of the
experts discussed a case, under construction at the time of the
interview, that combined electricity production with nuts and berry
production (economic dimension), ecological improvements of the
waterways (nature dimension) recovery of historical landscape
elements (landscape dimension). Moreover, the agricultural
activities are performed by a social farm that employs people whom
Former munition depot Morbach (Germany) combines the
economic and the landscape dimension. This case presents itself
5.3.6
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 151
5
(Gemeinde Morbach, 2021). The site is publicly accessible, includes
an visitor center and educational activities in the former munition
storage bunkers.
Neither the case study nor the expert interviews, revealed evidence
for a combination of the economic and nature dimension. Yet,
multiple experts emphasized the potential and necessity of this
combination for the near future.
Discussion
This paper presented an emergent typology of SPPs, of solar power
plants that consist of an alternative spatial form following inclusion
of societal considerations in addition to electricity production.
The typology consists of four dimensions: energy, economic,
mixed-production, nature inclusive, landscape inclusive, and their
in the planning and design of SPPs (5.4.1), followed by current and
future research (5.4.2) and contribution of this typology to energy
on methods and data.
Application of typology in planning and design of SPPs
local stakeholders in shaping their renewable energy landscapes.
Existing literature has called for improved decision-making and
communication related to siting and design of renewable energy
technologies (Steg et al., 2021). Participatory processes need to
be transparent, evidence based and inclusive in terms of values,
to be discussed and negotiated by (local) stakeholders. The overview
of spatial properties functions as a preliminary basis of evidence
5.4
5.4.1
152 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Policymakers, decision-makers and/or (local) stakeholders can
example from legislation set by national or regional governments
to normative criteria agreed upon by local stakeholders (Oudes &
Stremke, 2018). Furthermore, the typology expands the range of
potential solutions to local stakeholders and allows a discussion
not only about renewable energy, but inclusive of other local issues
(e.g. nature or landscape related) as well (Roddis et al., 2020).
Considering other (local) issues together with renewable energy
provision invites local stakeholders to think integrative, potentially
Von Haaren, Warren-Kretzschmar, Milos, & Werthmann, 2014).
Currently, societal considerations of SPPs are mainly included in the
planning and design of SPPs by territorial dierentiation: identifying
electricity production is combined with urban areas (rooftops) or
Hernandez et al., 2019). SPPs located on water bodies have an
increased annual electrical output compared to on land-based
SPPs and are generally located further away from urban areas
(Golroodbari & van Sark, 2020). Material dierentiation (Bridge,
2018), in this paper specifying a variety of spatial forms of SPPs, is
a complementary approach in addressing societal considerations in
the planning and design process of renewable energy landscapes.
Although the cases studied in this research were mainly located
form may also be of value in discussing SPPs on other land uses.
Alternative spatial forms on other land uses are already recognized
in literature, for example green solar rooftops (Schindler et al., 2018)
Handler, & Pearce, 2017). This study places these innovations in
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 153
5
a larger thinking framework and opens up the opportunity for
other potential combinations, for example nature inclusive solar
carparks. The main types and most combinations of dimensions
followed from case evidence, either from the case study or the
cases discussed during the expert interviews. Only the combination
of the economic and nature dimension remains hypothetical for
future research on the synergies between electricity production,
agriculture and biodiversity improvements.
to include societal considerations in the development of SPPs,
of the host landscape prior to the intervention. Introduction of new
features is not a guarantee for overall improvement of the existing
landscape. The existing landscape and SPP are able to interact
positively, negatively and neutral. A positive interaction between
SPPs and the existing landscape occurs when (components of) the
illustrate, semi-transparent PV panels located above a fruit orchard
improve the micro-climate and reduce risk. Similarly, solar carparks
in urban landscapes provide a positive interaction as the shade of
PV panels reduces excessive heating of the cars beneath in warm
circumstances. A negative interaction with the existing landscape
takes place when essential functions or values are replaced by other
functions and values as a result from the introduction of the SPP.
An example is the change from highly productive agricultural land
to an SPP. Yet, also when a nature inclusive SPP is proposed on a
interaction between SPP and existing landscape, the interaction can
be regarded as neutral. An example is a rooftop SPP that utilizes the
rooftop but hardly interferes with existing functions and values.
154 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
In line with Schulz and Skinner (2022), the spatial form of a
multi-purpose SPP needs to support a long term improvement
clear comparison of the spatial form to the existing landscape to
avoid risks of ‘greenwashing’ (Burke, 2018). On the other hand,
this provides the opportunity to move away from the focus on
the highest potential increase in (economic, nature or landscape)
or land use as a variable, but also the proposed spatial form of
an SPP. To illustrate, nature inclusive SPPs may be preferred on
low-productive agricultural land using native vegetation species
recreational opportunities for inhabitants and other landscape
users.
Current and future research
Whether the typology is applied in national or regional suitability
all dimensions is needed to identify and assess cross-dimensional
together and articulates knowledge on individual dimensions
discussed and examined elsewhere. With regard to the economic
dimension of SPPs, primarily agrivoltaic systems have been studied
(Graham et al., 2021). Ecological measures of multiple cases of
nature inclusive SPPs have been monitored and evaluated (e.g.
landscape
dimension, however, is scarcely studied, while others have already
the landscapes of carbon-neutrality” (Selman, 2010). As this
5.4.2
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 155
5
and other research has shown, multi-purpose SPPs also provide
positive impacts on the current and future landscape (Lobaccaro
research could focus, for example, on the long-term landscape
changes that take place during the operational stage of the SPP
and how these changes are perceived by local landscape users
(Sherren et al., 2016). Or, on the capability of landscape users to
SPPs with tangible spatial features such as lookouts, community
event sites and other recreational or educational facilities may
enable the preservation of rare grasslands with carefully selected
and executed ecological measures and maintenance.
Energy landscape vocabulary
(2018) stressed the need to advance “the larger conversation”
on energy landscapes. That typology distinguished between
aims to inform the discourse on solar power plants (substantive
qualication) by studying their spatial form (spatial qualication)
Our research illustrates that adjusting the spatial form (e.g. adjust
energy density, elevate PV panels) determines the compatibility
with other functions. This means that depending on the spatial
form, solar energy landscapes cover the spatial dominance
spectrum from entity (sharp borders, monofunctional) to
(Oudes & Stremke, 2020).
function and value” of contemporary landscapes (Bridge et al.,
5.4.3
156 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
considerations may prove to be illustrative for other types of energy
landscapes. Research on and discourse about energy landscape
contributed to the vocabulary of solar energy landscapes that may
support such a process.
Reflection on methods and data
The typology of SPPs was built upon cases from four European
countries (Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and Italy).
Although this selection provided national and regional variety in for
example landscape type, policy and legal regulations, other contexts
may bring forth additional insights on the spatial form of SPPs.
Furthermore, the experts that were interviewed were all Dutch and
part of a professional and academic community that also includes
the experts discussed the typology primarily from their daily ‘reality’
in the Dutch context. However, we believe that the Netherlands, with
its high population density and scarcity of space, is representative
of other urban delta’s in the Global North. The second limitation
is that some of the experts were aware of previous work of the
authors, which may have led to social desirability bias. To counter
this response bias, not uncommon in such studies, experts were
and support their arguments with evidence from the expert case.
The case informants scored the attention for landscape lower
compared to the outcomes of the case study. This lower attention
for landscape of case informants can be explained by the fact
that case informants primarily mentioned tangible landscape
features added to the case, for example picnic benches, lookouts
and charging points for electric bicycles. Less tangible properties,
such as alignment of PV patch to landscape patterns, were only
mentioned by one case informant.
5.4.4
Emergent typology of solar power plants | 157
5
Conclusion
This study set out to identify which societal considerations are
evidence-based planning and design processes. Our study shows
that societal considerations start to shape the spatial forms of SPPs.
and landscape. Each of these dimensions, and their interaction,
illustrates how co-construction of social and material relations give
the main types mixed-production, nature inclusive, and landscape
inclusive SPP have been distinguished through our analysis of 20
from academia, solar industry or design practice. One type, nature
inclusive SPP, is substantiated by multiple cases and already
receives substantive attention by scholars. Another type, landscape
inclusive SPP, is clearly present in the case evidence, but has yet
economic and nature considerations present an opportunity for
future explorations in both academia and practice.
production of SPPs, drawing them from the realm of technology into
the realm of energy landscapes and, ultimately, the social sciences.
Energy landscapes are the product of a societal process, involving
negotiations between stakeholders. The typology presented in this
paper gives direction to and provides ingredients for (local) decision-
making on solar energy landscapes. Such evidence based decision
making supports a social process that results in energy landscapes
that contribute to global renewable energy targets with increasing
attention to societal considerations.
5.5
Nature- and landscape inclusive solar power plant Abdissenbosch, under
construction in Parkstad Limburg, the Netherlands (source: author).
Chapter 6
Discussion and conclusion
160 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Discussion and conclusion | 161
6
Landscape and the energy transition: answering
the research questions
This thesis aimed to identify key tenets for a landscape inclusive
energy transition, for advancing the energy transition while meeting
societal considerations regarding landscape.
this thesis:
1. How can spatially explicit, evidence-based and stakeholder-
2.
transformation projects and what is the role of design,
3. What are the visual, functional and temporal properties of
4. Which societal considerations materialize in Solar Power Plants
transition targets (chapter 2). The framework uses local landscape
knowledge, landscape characteristics and stakeholder preferences
to advance a landscape inclusive energy transition on the regional
scale. By including ‘landscape’ early in the energy transition process,
societal considerations can inform technology and site selection, the
targets. These insights can activate policy and decision-makers to
analyzing the literature on three large-scale landscape
transformation projects, to understand how functional, experiential
6.1
162 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
the energy transition (chapter 3). There is ample evidence that
multi-purpose landscape arise when governments address existing
local issues or future demands in the transformation. Furthermore,
knowledge of how stakeholders experience their landscape is
important to engage them in the landscape transformation process.
Future aspects are addressed by anticipating future developments
in the early stages of the landscape transformation. The role of
design of the transformation. Governments are essential in setting
was limited mostly to consulting and informing local stakeholders,
including local stakeholder considerations can lead to synergies and
support for the transformation.
analysis of solar landscapes (chapter 4). Visual, functional and
temporal properties of the examined cases evidence how societal
solar power plants that are only optimized for electricity production.
The visual impact can be dealt with by reducing visibility, but also
by enhancing visibility in combination with recreational facilities.
Ecological, recreational, agricultural and water management features
can become part of solar landscapes, addressing considerations
of land use competition. These features may increase the needed
amount of land for renewable energy provision. Considerations with
regard to the end-of-life stage of solar technology are addressed in
a few cases only, by creating landscape features that enhance the
use of the site after decommissioning.
multi-purpose solar power plants. The typology consists of economic,
plants (chaptera5). The mixed-production type combines electricity
Discussion and conclusion | 163
6
production with other economic functions such as food production.
The nature-inclusive type combines electricity production with the
inclusive type combines electricity production with the improvement
of the physical landscape or/and the use and experience of the
landscape. The typology provides a basis for more systematic
stakeholder-informed decision-making on solar power plants.
concept of landscape in the energy transition discourse supports
the continuity of the energy transition and at the same time helps
chapter, this mutual approach is articulated as landscape inclusive
energy transition
building blocks that provides directions for continued innovation
in research, policy and practice in the domain of renewable energy
(6.2). The tenets suggest a more comprehensive understanding
of the concept ‘landscape’ is needed in the energy transition (6.3).
Furthermore, I will discuss the limitations of the research design of
this thesis (6.4) and present recommendations for environmental
planning and design (6.5). In the last section of this chapter, I argue
that a landscape inclusive energy transition provides the conditions
and means to merge considerations about landscape, justice and
nature in the energy transition (6.6).
Tenet 1: Knowledge and understanding of a landscape as
foundation
In a landscape inclusive energy transition, knowledge on and
used as a foundation for site selection and design.
6.2
6.2.1
Five tenets for a landscape inclusive energy
transition
164 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
landscape knowledge and stakeholder preferences (chapter 2).
Physical landscape characteristics such as relief, land use and
building types are used to identify the potential for solar energy,
wind energy, heat-cold storage, water power and biomass. These
physical landscape characteristics are generally available in maps
and databases and prone to expert evaluation. Furthermore,
landscape knowledge of local stakeholders provides a detailed view
and local renewable energy targets. Including local knowledge
reveals sites unwanted for renewable energy provision, or
unexpected potential sites, in an early stage. In the case example
of Parkstad Limburg (Chapter 2), making use of a proposed highway
stakeholders. Stakeholder preferences
of the future energy mix, partly determined by technology selection
and explicitly including or excluding certain parts of the landscape
inclusion of stakeholder preferences in regional energy potential
mapping. When local stakeholders are involved after sites have been
designated, it may “solidify existing divergent attitudes” towards
a renewable energy project and frustrate participatory processes
stakeholder knowledge and preferences can result in landscape
physical landscape characteristics exclusively (Wolsink, 2017).
Knowledge on landscape is also key to the local design of energy
landscapes (chapter 4). For solar landscapes, critical elements of
the local design are existing landscape patterns and elements, solar
infrastructure and their interactions. Knowledge consists of both
the physical landscape (e.g. matching size and shape of PV patches
to existing plots) as well as the way landscape users interpret and
experience that landscape (e.g. adjusting the height of PV panels to
decrease the visibility for nearby inhabitants).
Discussion and conclusion | 165
6
Tenet 2: Active use of time
In a landscape inclusive energy transition, policy makers,
designers, developers and landscape users actively use time in the
development of energy landscapes.
Existing research on landscape change regards time as a rather
passive factor: over time, preferences of local stakeholders may
change in favor of the landscape change, pointing to the adaptability
a view means waiting for landscape users to adapt to landscape
thesis show the potential to engage with time as an active factor in
the development of energy landscapes.
First, as stressed in the previous tenet, local designs of energy
landscape may incorporate historic patterns and elements,
responding to past versions of landscapes (chapter 4). Although this
may come at the cost of a lower energy density, preserving patterns
and elements connects to previous generations and sustains place
identity (Le Dû-Blayo, 2011).
Second, engagement of local stakeholders with energy landscapes
is often diminished once renewable energy technology is
operational in the present (Moore & Hackett, 2016). Multi-purpose
energy landscapes encompass other-than-energy functions that
stakeholders can engage with during the operation stage, such as a
fruit orchard that needs maintenance or a recreational walking path
(chapter 4). In addition to their active contribution to site selection
and design stages, landscape users can be given the opportunity to
propose changes to the energy landscape during operation stage as
expectations change or new ideas emerge (Schulz & Skinner, 2022).
The additional functions and services provided by multi-purpose
and legislation to be resilient to changing circumstances. Changing
ownership or economic circumstances for example, may threaten
the continuity of these functions through time (chapter 5).
6.2.2
166 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Third, considering the future, the limited timespans of some
renewable energy technologies (e.g. 20-30 years) are often matched
landscape at the end-of-life stage of the technology (chapter 4).
Finally, the end-of-life of energy technology in a certain project
marks a window of opportunity for landscape users to adapt that
energy landscape to the new situation.
Tenet 3: Energy landscapes respond to the diversity of society
In a landscape inclusive energy transition, the diversity of societal
interests, values and concerns together shape a large variety of
multi-purpose renewable energy landscapes.
the physical landscape and its interpretation and experience by
stakeholders. New energy landscapes, at least to some degree,
expectations voiced by communities.
The typology of multi-purpose solar power plants (chapter 5)
provides the directions to take into account both the physical
landscape and how it is interpreted and experienced. Insight
in a large variety of multi-purpose energy landscapes supports
communities to shape their energy landscape their way (Wolsink,
2017). Although the typology may help stakeholders to converge
to a shared solution, it may also help to identify where stakeholder
diverge, as some functions are hard to align and competing
for consensus between stakeholders, the typology may help to
Multi-purpose energy landscapes represent a new level of options
to be considered in decision-making. Recent studies argue that
community acceptance is supported if stakeholders understand
how alternative technologies and locations have been weighed in
relation to the project they are confronted with (Firestone & Kirk,
6.2.3
Discussion and conclusion | 167
6
regional scale by the methodological framework proposed in
chapter 2. On the local scale, the typology of solar power plants
(chapter 5). Awareness of the variation in spatial form allows
communities to co-design energy landscapes, rooted in existing
landscape characteristics and local considerations, constructing
landscape identity (Basnou, Pino, Davies, Winkel, & De Vreese,
highly standardized renewable energy projects, variation in spatial
form is common in other landscape changes. Farmsteads in the
not only according to soil or landscape type, but also according to
local customs and belief systems. In some regions for example, the
increased wealth of the farmer was expressed by gardens in English
landscape garden style (De Wit & Meeus, 2011).
At the same time, societal considerations incite technological
left-over spaces on the plots with PV arrays. Newer cases showed a
higher variability in array width that resulted in improved alignment
of the PV patch with the plot shape (chapter 4).
The typology presented in chapter 5 provides directions for
proposals of future solar power plants. Future research is needed
to inform developers, decision-makers, designers and landscape
users about evaluation of alternative designs. Relevant topics are
for example determining a set of minimum criteria and synergies
Tenet 4: Coupling energy with other societal challenges
In a landscape inclusive energy transition, other grand challenges of
the 21st century such as food security and biodiversity are coupled
6.2.4
168 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Energy provision can be combined with other objectives that lead
to multifunctionality in the local design of an energy landscape
(chapter 4 and 5). Multifunctionality refers to the inclusion of
functions additional to energy provision within the boundaries of
a renewable energy project. The cases illustrated the wide range
of possibilities to include other-than-energy functions in solar
towards a spatial form of solar power plants that incorporates for
example food security (e.g. agrivoltaics), the biodiversity crisis (e.g.
of adaptation to changing climate.
Coupling of societal challenges in landscape transformation
in energy landscapes, this may lead to a more widely shared
necessity of landscape change and improve robustness during the
for societal challenges such as climate adaptation and food security
are considered by landscape users when they are confronted with
proposed solar power plants. Being aware that societal challenges
can be combined in the same landscape is therefore relevant for
policy makers.
This thesis illustrated that multifunctionality per se within the
boundary of a project area can be achieved rather easily. Case
degree of multifunctionality (chapter 4). It is therefore important
is genuine cross-sectoral collaboration and understanding of
landscape (teneta1). If these notions are absent, multifunctionality
can also become standardized, with little attention for landscape
character and could therefore be perceived by the community as
‘greenwashing’ (Burke, 2018).
Discussion and conclusion | 169
6
Tenet 5: Multi-level coordination of landscape
In a landscape inclusive energy transition, landscape is considered
and landscape values coordinated from local to international scale
and vice versa by governments as well as other public and private
stakeholders involved in landscape governance.
In landscape transformation projects, regional and national
ambitions (chapter 3). Objectives set on higher governance levels
multi-level coordination is found in European biodiversity policy
(Natura 2000), where nature conservation targets shared on the
developments. Although such multi-level coordination is not without
Jurczak, 2021), some values need to be considered on a larger scale
to assess interventions on a local scale. For example, habitats and
migration routes of birds inform site selection of wind turbines (Dai,
Bergot, Liang, Xiang, & Huang, 2015).
on energy potential (chapter 2). Some of these spatially explicit
constraints are controlled by the local government, while others
are bound in national or even international legislation. Other
constraints were the direct result of stakeholder considerations and
not (yet) part of policy or legislation.
4). Energy landscapes conceived with low energy densities – to
energy infrastructure, using landscape elements atypical compared
to the landscape character.
Whether landscape values are part of governmental ambitions,
policies and legislation or preferences of local stakeholders, they
6.2.5
170 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
essential to meet societal expectations with regard to energy
landscapes on a local level (Devine-Wright et al., 2017). Coordination
how energy transition should take
governance levels (Calvert, Smit, Wassmansdorf, & Smithers, 2021).
Additional research is needed to understand how responses of
of this thesis point to, for example, multi-level coordination of how
A comprehensive understanding of landscape
landscape inclusive energy transition. Together, they point to a more
comprehensive understanding of landscape for energy transition and
other transformative challenges. As described in the introduction,
the conventional understanding of landscape is that of a scenery
in a stable-state
being considered an ‘obstacle’ in the energy transition. Landscape
scholars, however, have started to explore a more comprehensive
understanding of landscape (1.4). Building on that knowledge, the
following four sections provide directions for ‘landscape’ to become
a systemic catalyzer for the 21st century energy transition.
Embracing landscape as object and subject
Proponents of a comprehensive understanding of landscape
embrace ‘landscape’ both as physical landscape (object) and
how people interpret and experience that landscape (subject).
Landscape is undeniably shaped by both natural processes
6.3.1
6.3
Discussion and conclusion | 171
6
(Antrop & Van Eetvelde,a
acknowledged and become part of participatory processes(Moore
& Hackett, 2016).
landscapes are not accounted for in research. Wehrle et al. (2021)
for example, set out to calculate the costs of ‘disturbed landscapes’.
technologies. Favoring alternative technologies with a lower cost-
‘undisturbed landscapes’. This is energy transition and landscape
as ‘zero-sum game’ in action. While their methods and conclusions
may be sound, the premise that energy infrastructure is always
perceived negatively has been dismissed by others (Firestone &
renewable energy landscapes.
understand and treat landscape both as object and subject
(chaptera3). Such a concept can be used to explore and discuss
which expectations a landscape needs to meet (considering
functional, experiential and future aspects) and according to
which interests (economic, environmental, social, cultural). The
exploration of this concept in the energy transition.
Balanced attention for the past, present and future of landscape
Proponents of a comprehensive understanding of landscape
balance attention for the past, present and future of landscapes.
Besides attention to the present, attention to the past and the
future in landscape projects may be one of the remedies towards
climax thinking: the belief that our current landscape is the
intended endpoint for our given context (Sherren, 2021). The
6.3.2
172 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
physical landscape and its interpretation and experience by people,
are subject to change (Tress & Tress, 2001). To illustrate, climate
human adaptation of the river system. The way people adapted
also changed: from raising the height of dikes to a cross-sectoral
In the past decades, a 2 billion euro program of two dozen river
adaptation projects in the Netherlands are testimonies of these
changes (Rijke et al., 2012).
Proponents of a comprehensive understanding of landscape
landscape, or the ‘tyranny of the now’ (Krznaric, 2021). If the future
be more open to an active role in the discourse about and decisions
of this active role. Stakeholders, for example, added a vegetable
garden to solar park de Kwekerij, while it was already operational
(Chapter 4). This active role may vary from local stakeholders
themselves doing construction and maintenance, to stakeholders
(De Waal & Stremke, 2014). While change is inevitable, there is
no such thing as a free pass to change whatever is necessary.
that need to be preserved for future generations (Pinto-Correia &
Kristensen, 2013).
Facilitate engagement of stakeholders and society at large
Proponents of a comprehensive understanding of landscape
facilitate active engagement with local stakeholders and society at
large in the planning and design of energy landscapes.
On the local level, this thesis argued to include options of spatial
form in decision-making and co-design, as a means for landscape
users to engage in the proposed landscape change. Such
designers, developers as well as the landscape users. However,
6.3.3
Discussion and conclusion | 173
6
shaping the narrative and tuning to familiar landscape elements is
essential for securing community acceptance (Wolsink, 2017) and
landscapes (Selman, 2010). For future progress in this direction,
social acceptance and justice scholars need to acknowledge the
systems on social acceptance. For this she distinguished between
a ground-mounted PV installation and a rooftop installation.
sizes.
Yet, it also obscures the actual location of the installations (ground-
landscapes and, most importantly, how stakeholders relate to those
Engagement of stakeholders in the energy transition through
actively shaping energy landscapes contributes to recent theories
of ‘material participation’. Material participation refers to practices
the capacity to engage and to mediate involvement with public
comprehensive understanding of landscape, landscapes become a
medium to facilitate engagement with stakeholders, from design to
implementation (Nassauer, 2012). Engagement of stakeholders with
energy landscapes may in turn lead to energy citizenship (Ryghaug,
Skjølsvold, & Heidenreich, 2018). The participatory approach used in
Southill Solar (see section 1.1) provides a promising perspective on
material participation involving a large number of landscape users.
On the societal level, this thesis showed that a single driver for
landscape transformation is able to simultaneously address
multiple other societal challenges. A comprehensive understanding
of landscape combines diverse interests, values and concerns and
for example for the food-energy-water nexus (Yuan & Lo,a2022).
Cross-sectoral collaboration that leads to synergies between
174 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
multiple societal challenges in energy, increases the resilience
of such solutions. An example is agrivoltaics that combines crop
et al., 2019). The synthetic and integrative character of landscape
sectors and disciplines (Vicenzotti et al., 2016).
Local and societal interests will not always lead to easy consensus
amongst stakeholders. Decision-making therefore needs to attend
Wolsink, 2007a). To engage with the diversity of stakeholders and
of participation might be useful. Instead of participation as a
rigid procedure that needs to be followed in formal procedures,
a systemic approach that accounts for the diversity and
interrelatedness of collective participatory practices is needed
(Chilvers, Pallett, & Hargreaves, 2018).
Shaping landscape on multiple scales
Proponents of a comprehensive understanding of landscape shape
to scale. Decision-making isolated on a single scale is therefore
other 21st century societal challenges, for example climate change
adaptation. There, the combination of hydrological and landscape
urban development, recreation and road infrastructure (chapter 3).
Such a clear and shared frame has the ability to anchor a planning
process that considers both the physical as experiential aspects of
landscape (Calvert et al., 2021).
Shaping landscape on multiple scale levels has at least two
directions. For policy makers, designers, researchers and other
6.3.4
Discussion and conclusion | 175
6
stakeholders primarily occupied with landscape on the local scale,
being involved on higher scales brings awareness and possibly
strategies in the Netherlands for example, have been important for
territory. Similarly, stakeholders shaping landscape on the national
scale need to be aware of the conditions and circumstances of the
local scale, where landscape transformation is implemented (see
management of local stakeholders. The local scale is sometimes
how Natura 2000 areas or protection of red species are determined.
Such values will need to be determined on a higher scale level,
higher level constraints can and should be critically examined, as
landscape values may change or the designated status of some
real world.
Although awareness of other scales might limit local solutions,
shaping landscape on multiple scales possibly informs a more evenly
an impetus to a more just energy transition (Jenkins, McCauley,
The context of the Netherlands
The tenets for a landscape inclusive energy transition have been
by resources such as time and funding, and took place in a
Although this thesis draws from international cases, the scope
6.4
6.4.1
Limitations
176 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
the Dutch energy transition. Decisions on the focus of the four
individual research modules have been informed by my own
the Netherlands, supplemented by exchanges with colleagues,
students, commissioners, energy professionals, designers and
scholars involved in the Dutch energy transition.
time, research involving landscape can only provide generalizable
knowledge under similar conditions (A. Van den Brink, Bruns, Tobi,
in the Netherlands and other countries with similar landscapes.
that have comparable physical, social, cultural and economic
other energy technologies may lead to additional knowledge and,
possibly, additional tenets.
Identication of innovative cases
The focus of this thesis on built cases of solar power plants has
and application have not been included. The solar power plant
cases in chapters 4 and 5 mostly consist of crystalline silicon or
of technological readiness (TRL). TRL is a measure to assess the
maturity of a technology, with levels ranging from 1 (basic principles
2017). Recently, it seems that innovations in solar technology are
operational (TRL 9). These technological innovations provide
additional opportunities and challenges for a landscape inclusive
energy transition, as has been recently acknowledged (Toledo
& Scognamiglio, 2021). To illustrate, bifacial panels absorb solar
of the light to pass through, enabling combination of agriculture
6.4.2
Discussion and conclusion | 177
6
and electricity production (Riaz, Imran, Younas, & Butt, 2021).
Together with colleagues of the Landscape Architecture chair group
in Wageningen I am, for example, involved in a research project to
The use of colors and prints on PV panels is another innovation that
is part of building integrated photovoltaics (Pelle, Lucchi, Maturi,
to highly customized PV panels for the built environment, but
have implications for landscape as well. Recently, my colleagues
colors, prints and array shapes in a participatory design project
(Wageningen University, 2021).
Focus on solar power plants
This thesis has argued for a landscape inclusive energy transition,
for a substantial part based upon solar power plant case evidence.
Research on the interaction between solar power plants and
landscape has been limited, while their number has increased
over the past decade (Comello et al., 2018). The cases examined
in this thesis showed that considerations from local stakeholders
and society at large shape multi-purpose energy landscapes
(teneta3 anda
of renewable energy infrastructure as well, the spatial properties
properties will also lead to other ways of shaping multi-purpose
dams (Schulz & Skinner, 2022) or wind turbines in forest areas
(Bunzel, Bovet, Thrän, & Eichhorn, 2019).
Collaboration with landscape users
Collaboration with landscape users has been limited in this research.
The research presented in chapter 2 was built upon interviews with
civil servants and aldermen of the involved municipalities. Involving
local communities in energy potential mapping and energy target
6.4.3
6.4.4
178 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
framework. While the current framework uses interviews and
al., 2021) or methods of participatory mapping (Stremke & Picchi,
2017). In chapter 5, one informant per case (e.g. the designer,
initiator or developer) was involved to test their interpretation of
the dimensions of the solar power plant typology. Future research
involving a larger sample of landscape users can provide more
detailed insights on the applicability of the typology in planning
and design practice and understanding how societal considerations
shape physical energy landscapes.
The comparative case analysis was limited to the physical landscape
and did not study the interaction between considerations and
physical landscape during the planning and design process.
Other researchers of my chair group currently employ action
research to examine these interactions in participatory processes
on solar landscapes.
Recommendations for environmental planning
and design
A comprehensive understanding of landscape
which environmental planning and design operates in landscape
in sync with the four key aspects of comprehensive understanding
of landscape articulated heretofore, this section outlines four sets
of recommendations.
Examine the interpretation and experience of landscape
Embracing landscape both as object and subject, inherently changes
the role and position of environmental planners and designers.
Planners and designers need to be immersed in a landscape by
studying the physical landscape and devising ways to understand
6.5
6.5.1
Discussion and conclusion | 179
6
how people interpret and experience this landscape. Participatory
mapping and related methods are needed to identify how local
stakeholders interpret and experience their landscape (e.g.
suggests that mapping of ‘meaningful places’ may support an open
discussion between stakeholders, because it reveals divergent
al., 2020).
Furthermore, decisions based upon interpretation, experience
by energy potential maps. What and why parts of the landscape
are considered a ‘potential’ for a certain intervention (in energy
techno-economic considerations or planning regulations. Although
planning regulations embed collective landscape values (Bridge et
al., 2013), these values may come from a time prior to the awareness
of climate change. To avoid overemphasis on the present landscape
(tenet 2), a transparent discussion is needed on the values rather
than how they are formalized in planning regulations. For example,
many planning regulations exclude forest areas for wind energy
turbines do not outweigh their positive impacts. However, decision-
makers and landscape users may re-evaluate the values of the
example higher costs of solar energy or locating turbines closer to
Explore the potential of the past, present and future of energy
landscapes
A balanced attention for the past, present and future of landscape
leads to several recommendations for environmental planning and
design. First, with a comprehensive understanding of landscape,
end-of-life decisions need to be discussed and accounted for in
policies, local implementation and evaluation of energy landscapes.
6.5.2
180 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
during the time a power plant is operational (e.g. 20-30 years).
Policy makers therefore need to consider potential future states of
energy landscapes and use backcasting to identify the interventions
and policies needed in the present (Windemer & Cowell, 2021).
Members of cultural heritage committees should not only focus on
preserving existing characteristics but also how a renewable energy
project can improve landscape characteristics.
Second, policy makers need to consider re-design of energy
landscapes as a more encompassing alternative to technology
focused end-of-life decisions such as permit extension or repowering
opportunities to address societal considerations in physical energy
landscapes, as illustrated by this thesis. Planners and designers
should become involved in the re-design of 1st generation of
renewable energy landscapes. These energy landscapes have
been mostly realized from an economic and energetic perspective.
However, current repowering practice often lacks conscious
the province of Flevoland (the Netherlands), proposes a re-design
of an organically grown wind energy landscape to a situation
that involves fewer wind turbines that are more in line with the
landscape characteristics (Province of Flevoland, 2016).
Third, civil servants, consultants and other professionals involved
to include future generations in the conversation on landscape
change. Roman Krznaric (2021), in his latest book, refers to the so-
called Future Design movement in Japan, where in such processes a
share of the participants are asked to represent future generations.
Expand the variety of energy landscapes by engaging with
different landscape users
stakeholders and society at large lead to a variety of energy
landscapes. The evidence from solar landscapes and multi-purpose
6.5.3
Discussion and conclusion | 181
6
the spatial form of energy landscapes in direct response to societal
considerations. Planning and design can use these directions, along
with comprehensive landscape analysis methods, to continue
expanding the variety of energy landscapes. This calls for a role
as ‘boundary spanner’ for environmental designers and planners.
Planners and designers as boundary spanners “combine multiple
spatial objectives, cross disciplinary boundaries, and bring together
varying interests and values” (M. Van den Brink et al., 2019, p. 22). To
process (M. Van den Brink et al., 2019).
With an increasing variety of energy landscapes that include multiple
assessments (EIA) and other evaluative methods need to be adjusted.
Contemporary assessment methods implicitly or explicitly consider
renewable energy technology as an intervention with inherent
negative externalities. With a comprehensive understanding of
landscape, methods need to assess the energy landscape as
complete landscape rather than the impacts of a technology on a
landscape. Assessment methods of energy landscapes therefore
need to include societal considerations, notions of past, present and
future, and capture positive impacts in addition to negative impacts.
of both experts and communities in assessment studies (Bevk &
way because of cross-sectoral collaboration and early involvement
of landscape users.
Establish feedback between multiple scales
Feedback between scales is essential because decisions on the
decisions impossible. Support of national governments is needed
to ensure that spatial policies, subsidy schemes and other
6.5.4
182 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Netherlands, for example, the current development of agrivoltaic
schemes. While multifunctionality is one of the spatial principles
in the Dutch National Climate Agreement (Klimaatakkoord,a2019),
subsidy schemes are not yet favoring multifunctional over
monofunctional solutions.
Feedback mechanisms between the scales is therefore essential,
especially feedback that originates from local landscape change.
Experience of landscape change by stakeholders on the local
making on other scales (Claessens, Schoorl, Verburg, Geraedts,
& Veldkamp, 2009). National and provincial policy and decision-
makers need to understand how their policy and legislation
improved future implementation.
Next generation energy landscapes: just, nature
and landscape inclusive?
Embracing a comprehensive understanding of landscape is not
landscape inclusive energy transition, but also
provides avenues to contribute to both a just and nature inclusive
transition. In this last section of the dissertation I position ‘landscape’
with respect to these other two prominent strands of academic
research in the energy transition. The relationship between
landscape, justice and nature was already recognized almost 30
years ago by Kenneth Olwig. He described landscape as “nexus of
pp. 630–631).
6.6
Discussion and conclusion | 183
6
Among the multitude of etymological origins of the word landscape,
landscape, in tandem with natural processes. Landscapes are
expressions of power and therefore also become an arena for
contesting power (Jones, 2006). Increasingly, the spatial dimensions
of energy justice are acknowledged (Bouzarovski & Simcock,a2017).
Moreover, realizing energy transition targets is considered to
be dependent on energy landscapes being understood as “the
(Bosch & Schmidt, 2020, p. 10). In the energy transition, justice
features prominently on the agenda of social sciences, often
distinguishing distributional, procedural and recognitional justice
The call for multi-scale coordination of decisions on landscape
increases chance for distributive justice, as justice on one scale
does not necessarily imply justice on another scale (Bouzarovski
& Simcock, 2017). For example, if all regions are energy neutral,
designation are excluded from renewable energy development and
lead to increased pressure elsewhere in the region. The awareness
landscapes and social displacement elsewhere. Questions, for
example, to opponents of wind parks in the Netherlands whom
argue for the preservation of ‘their’ existing landscape, while coal
from South-American mines – shipped and used in the Netherlands
– transforms landscapes ‘of others’ (Cardoso, 2018). Similar to the
geographical scale, aspects of intergenerational justice emerge when
considering the temporal scale and the rights of future generations
(Sherren, 2021). For future generations, it is not only essential that
energy landscapes are created (to mitigate climate change) but
also how and what kind of energy landscapes are created. This
gives a responsibility to the current generation to decide not only
which landscapes to preserve but also to create a legacy of energy
184 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
landscapes that is meaningful for future generations as well. This
thesis has illustrated some means to actively use ‘time’ to account
for intergenerational justice.
procedural
justice as it introduces stakeholder preferences already in early
stages of the energy transition (tenet 1) and allows stakeholders to
shape energy landscapes (tenet 3). The latter is a powerful tool to
engage stakeholders in decision-making on energy landscapes. In a
recent study of 25 innovative energy projects, Stober et al. (2021)
of the project is an essential condition for empowerment, in their
study the highest level of participation. Being engaged in the design
contrasts with current practices of ‘hiding’ energy infrastructure that
and gain social acceptance” (Ferrario & Castiglioni, 2017, p. 834).
Furthermore, using knowledge of the landscape and its users in
recognized as
landscape user to the start of a planning and design process. This
at least stress the need to bring more stakeholders together than
the landowner and inhabitants living nearby. Moreover, an energy
transition that departs from landscape instead of technology, may
lead to landscape users taking the initiative for renewable energy
provision, establishing themselves as ‘serious partners’ in the
energy transition (Rasch & Köhne, 2017).
Working on a landscape inclusive energy transition therefore calls
for an increased sensitivity of planners and designers on issues
study whether the spatial form of an energy landscape is a just
representation of local interests, values and concerns. Paired with
the temporal dimension, longitudinal research could be used to
of an energy landscape.
Discussion and conclusion | 185
6
Natural processes are at the heart of landscape and the energy
transition is increasingly seen as an opportunity to improve
Moore-O’Leary et al., 2017). Recent research has especially
focused on planning and management of solar power plants to
et al.,a2018). A landscape inclusive energy transition embraces
not only the interpretation and experience of people – human
and maintains natural processes. Knowledge of existing landscape
characteristics, such as linear vegetation patterns or microrelief
provide the conditions for ecological improvements. This thesis
pointed to restoring lost landscape features or introducing new
landscape features that improve ecological conditions. While
interventions on the site may improve local biodiversity (Randle-
Boggis et al., 2020) considering the larger landscape context of
the project area provides additional opportunities. Considering
these higher scales, especially with linear landscape features and
ecological stepping stones, can improve species movement and
increase ecological robustness (Blaydes et al., 2021). Moreover, a
regional approach to the siting of solar power plants could result
in new ecological networks with solar power plants as hotspots
(Semeraro et al., 2018). Frontrunner regions planning multiple
of such solar power plants could serve to research both the
opportunities and challenges of a so-called ‘eco-energy network’.
From a cross-sectoral perspective, a landscape inclusive energy
transition supports synergies with other societal challenges on
various spatial scales. Recent research, for example, suggests to
deliberately site solar power plants with honeybee facilities near
fruit orchards to improve pollination, creating synergy between
ecological and economic objectives (Armstrong, Brown, Davies,
Whyatt, & Potts, 2021). Planning for a landscape inclusive energy
transition connects food security, local economy and renewable
hybridized sub-type nature and landscape inclusive solar power
186 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
plant (chapter 5) highlights the potential synergy between ecological
improvements and experience by landscape users, for example
infrastructure (chapter 5). Future research should identify which
ecological objectives can be realized in solar power plants that are
open to the public and which ecological objectives necessitate solar
power plants to be inaccessible to visitors.
transition that supports the continuity of the energy transition and
at the same time helps to meet societal considerations regarding
landscape. The energy transition and, with that, stakeholders and
conventional and thus limited understanding of landscape in energy
transition arenas has led to a situation where landscape has become
a perceived obstacle to the transition. This thesis has revealed that
a more comprehensive understanding can move ‘landscape’ from
problem to solution space and, eventually, become a catalyst for
the 21st century energy transition. Understanding landscape as co-
construction of natural processes, human activities and diverse
experiences provides promising avenues for environmental
planners and designers to establish solid grounds with both natural
and social sciences in pursuit of an inclusive energy transition.
Discussion and conclusion | 187
6
Wind energy landscape in the Sierra Nevada region, Andalucia, Spain
(source: author).
References
190 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
References | 191
R
References
Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/
b3065
Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003). Strategic spatial planning
and regional governance in europe. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 69(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976301
Amaducci, S., Yin, X., & Colauzzi, M. (2018). Agrivoltaic systems to optimise
land use for electric energy production. Applied Energy, 220(March), 545–
561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.081
Antrop, M. (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside
of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15(3), 257–270. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1008151109252
Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 70(1–2), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
LANDURBPLAN.2003.10.002
Antrop, M. (2006). Sustainable landscapes: Contradiction, ction or utopia?
Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3–4), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2005.02.014
Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2017). Landscape perspectives: the holistic nature
of landscape (Vol. 23). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
024-1183-6
Apostol, D., McCarty, J., & Sullivan, R. (2017). Improving the visual t of
renewable energy projects. In D. Apostol, J. Palmer, M. Pasqualetti, R.
Smardon, & R. Sullivan (Eds.), The Renewable Energy Landscape: Preserving
Scenic Values in our Sustainable Future (pp. 167–197). Abingdon, Oxon;
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1989.tb00353.x
Apostol, D., Palmer, J., Pasqualetti, M. J., Smardon, R., & Sullivan, R. (2017).
The renewable energy landscape: preserving scenic values in our sustainable
future. Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge.
Armstrong, A., Brown, L., Davies, G., Whyatt, J. D., & Potts, S. G. (2021).
Honeybee pollination benets could inform solar park business cases,
planning decisions and environmental sustainability targets. Biological
Conservation, 263, 109332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109332
Armstrong, A., Ostle, N. J., & Whitaker, J. (2016). Solar park microclimate and
vegetation management eects on grassland carbon cycling. Environmental
Research Letters, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074016
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944366908977225
A
192 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Arts, B., Buizer, M., Horlings, L., Ingram, V., Van Oosten, C., & Opdam, P.
(2017). Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 42, 439–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
environ-102016-060932
Balta-Ozkan, N., Watson, T., & Mocca, E. (2015). Spatially uneven development
and low carbon transitions: Insights from urban and regional planning.
Energy Policy, 85, 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2015.05.013
Barrett, T. L., Farina, A., & Barrett, G. W. (2009). Aesthetic landscapes: An
emergent component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology, 24(8),
1029–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9354-8
Barron-Gaord, G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Minor, R. L., Sutter, L. F.,
Barnett-Moreno, I., Blackett, D. T., … Macknick, J. E. (2019). Agrivoltaics
provide mutual benets across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands.
Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 848–855. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-
0364-5
Basnou, C., Pino, J., Davies, C., Winkel, G., & De Vreese, R. (2020). Co-
design Processes to Address Nature-Based Solutions and Ecosystem
Services Demands: The Long and Winding Road Towards Inclusive Urban
Planning. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/
frsc.2020.572556
Batel, S. (2020). Research on the social acceptance of renewable energy
technologies: Past, present and future. Energy Research and Social Science,
68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101544
Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., & Tangeland, T. (2013). Social acceptance of low
carbon energy and associated infrastructures: A critical discussion. Energy
Policy, 58, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.018
Baxter, J., Walker, C., Ellis, G., Devine-Wright, P., Adams, M., & Fullerton, R. S.
(2020). Scale, history and justice in community wind energy: An empirical
review. Energy Research and Social Science, 68, 101532. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101532
Bélanger, P. (2009). Landscape as Infrastructure. Landscape Journal, 28(1),
79–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505515.2507827
Bevk, T., & Golobič, M. (2020). Contentious eye-catchers: Perceptions of
landscapes changed by solar power plants in Slovenia. Renewable Energy,
152, 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.108
Bidwell, D. (2016). Thinking through participation in renewable energy
decisions. Nature Energy, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.51
Blaschke, T., Biberacher, M., Gadocha, S., & Schardinger, I. (2013). “Energy
landscapes”: Meeting energy demands andhuman aspirations. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 55, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.11.022
References | 193
R
Blaydes, H., Potts, S. G., Whyatt, J. D., & Armstrong, A. (2021). Opportunities to
enhance pollinator biodiversity in solar parks. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 145, 111065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111065
Bongers, J., Broers, W., Janssen, F., Kimman, J., & Weusten, P. (2014). Parkstad
Limburg Energietransitie (PALET): Achtergrondrapport 1. Heerlen.
Borus, K., & Bergström, G. (2017). Analyzing text and discourse: eight
approaches for the social sciences. London: Sage Publications.
Borgogno Mondino, E., Fabrizio, E., & Chiabrando, R. (2015). Site selection of
large ground-mounted photovoltaic plants: A GIS decision support system
and an application to Italy. International Journal of Green Energy, 12(5), 515–
525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2013.858047
Bosch, S., & Schmidt, M. (2020). Wonderland of technology? How energy
landscapes reveal inequalities and injustices of the German Energiewende.
Energy Research and Social Science, 70, 101733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2020.101733
Bosch, S., & Schwarz, L. (2019). The energy transition from plant operators’
perspective-a behaviorist approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(6).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061621
Bouzarovski, S., & Simcock, N. (2017). Spatializing energy justice. Energy Policy,
107, 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.064
Brandt, J., & Vejre, H. (2004). Multifunctional landscapes - motives, concepts
and perceptions. In J. Brandt & H. Vejre (Eds.), Multifunctional Landscapes:
Volume 1 Theory, Values and History (pp. 3–32). Southampton: WIT Press.
Bridge, G. (2018). The map is not the territory: A sympathetic critique of
energy research’s spatial turn. Energy Research and Social Science, 36, 11–
20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.033
Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of
energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy,
53, 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2012.10.066
Bunzel, K., Bovet, J., Thrän, D., & Eichhorn, M. (2019). Hidden outlaws in the
forest? A legal and spatial analysis of onshore wind energy in Germany.
Energy Research and Social Science, 55, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2019.04.009
Burgess, P. J., Rivas Casado, M., Gavu, J., Mead, A., Cockerill, T., Lord, R., …
Howard, D. C. (2012). A framework for reviewing the trade-os between,
renewable energy, food, feed and wood production at a local level.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 129–142. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.RSER.2011.07.142
Burke, M. J. (2018). Mutually-Benecial Renewable Energy Systems. Relations,
6(1), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.7358/rela-2018-001-burk
Busscher, T., van den Brink, M., & Verweij, S. (2018). Strategies for integrating
water management and spatial planning: Organising for spatial quality in
AB
194 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
the Dutch “Room for the River” program. Journal of Flood Risk Management.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12448
Butler, A., & Sarlöv-Herlin, I. (2019). Changing landscape identity—practice,
plurality, and power. Landscape Research, 44(3), 271–277. https://doi.org/10
.1080/01426397.2019.1589774
Calvert, K., Greer, K., & Maddison-MacFadyen, M. (2019). Theorizing
energy landscapes for energy transition management: Insights from a
socioecological history of energy transitions in Bermuda. Geoforum, 102,
191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.005
Calvert, K., Pearce, J. M., & Mabee, W. E. (2013). Toward renewable energy geo-
information infrastructures: Applications of GIScience and remote sensing
that build institutional capacity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
18, 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.024
Calvert, K., Smit, E., Wassmansdorf, D., & Smithers, J. (2021). Energy transition,
rural transformation and local land-use planning: Insights from Ontario,
Canada. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. https://doi.
org/10.1177/25148486211024909
Cardoso, A. (2018). Valuation Languages Along the Coal Chain From Colombia
to the Netherlands and to Turkey. Ecological Economics, 146, 44–59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.012
Carlisle, J. E., Kane, S. L., Solan, D., & Joe, J. C. (2014). Support for solar energy:
Examining sense of place and utility-scale development in California.
Energy Research and Social Science, 3(C), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2014.07.006
Carullo, L., Russo, P., Riguccio, L., & Tomaselli, G. (2013). Evaluating the
Landscape Capacity of Protected Rural Areas to Host Photovoltaic Parks
in Sicily. Natural Resources, 04(07), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.4236/
nr.2013.47057
Casprini, P. (2013). Siena carbon free - goal reached. Siena. Retrieved from
http://www.provincia.siena.it/var/prov/storage/original/application/
395f72cc44c6d83188ca1d561cf453be.pdf
Castán Broto, V., & Baker, L. (2018). Spatial adventures in energy studies: An
introduction to the special issue. Energy Research and Social Science, 36,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.002
CBS. (2009). De verborgen aantrekkingskracht van Parkstad Limburg. De nieuwe
groei heet krimp: een perspectief voor Parkstad Limburg. Heerlen.
CBS. (2010). Regionale prognose 2009-2040: Vergrijzing en omslag van groei
naar krimp. Heerlen.
Cevallos-Sierra, J., & Ramos-Martin, J. (2018). Spatial assessment of the
potential of renewable energy: The case of Ecuador. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1154–1165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.08.015
References | 195
R
Chiabrando, R., Fabrizio, E., & Garnero, G. (2009). The territorial and landscape
impacts of photovoltaic systems: Denition of impacts and assessment of
the glare risk. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2441–2451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.008
Chiabrando, R., Fabrizio, E., & Garnero, G. (2011). On the applicability of the
visual impact assessment OAISPP tool to photovoltaic plants. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 845–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.09.030
Chilvers, J., Pallett, H., & Hargreaves, T. (2018). Ecologies of participation in
socio-technical change: The case of energy system transitions. Energy
Research and Social Science, 42, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2018.03.020
Claessens, L., Schoorl, J. M., Verburg, P. H., Geraedts, L., & Veldkamp, A. (2009).
Modelling interactions and feedback mechanisms between land use change
and landscape processes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 129(1–
3), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.008
Comello, S., Reichelstein, S., & Sahoo, A. (2018). The road ahead for solar PV
power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92, 744–756. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.098
Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention. European Treaty
Series – No. 176. Florence. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680080621
Cousse, J. (2021). Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, aect, and
the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2021.111107
Cowell, R. (2010). Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning-The
construction of “acceptable locations” in Wales. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 222–
232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.01.006
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective
in the research process. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Crowe, S. (1958). The landscape of power. London: Architectural Press.
Cuppen, M. E., & Winnubst, M. (2008). How public participation inuenced
the legitimation of a policy process: the case of a dike relocation. In J.
Koppenjan & N. Ryan (Eds.), IRSPM Annual conference 2008 (pp. 1–25).
Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
Dai, K., Bergot, A., Liang, C., Xiang, W. N., & Huang, Z. (2015). Environmental
issues associated with wind energy - A review. Renewable Energy, 75, 911–921.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074
BCD
196 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality
assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4),
267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4
Davis, J. (2011). Urbanising the Event : how past processes, present politics and
future plans shape London’s Olympic Legacy. Department of Architecture. The
London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Retrieved from
http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/382/
Davis, J., & Thornley, A. (2010). Urban regeneration for the London 2012
Olympics: Issues of land acquisition and legacy. City, Culture and Society,
1(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2010.08.002
De Boer, J., Zuidema, C., & Gugerell, K. (2018). New interaction paths in the
energy landscape: the role of local energy initiatives. Landscape Research,
43(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1444154
De Jong, J., & Stremke, S. (2020). Evolution of Energy Landscapes : A Regional
Case Study in the Western Netherlands.
De Jonge, J. (2009). Landscape architecture between politics and science : an
integrative perspective on landscape planning and design in the network
society. Wageningen: Uitgeverij Blauwdruk.
De Laurentis, C., & Pearson, P. J. G. (2018). Understanding the material
dimensions of the uneven deployment of renewable energy in two Italian
regions. Energy Research and Social Science, 36, 106–119. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.009
De Marco, A., Petrosillo, I., Semeraro, T., Pasimeni, M. R., Aretano, R., & Zurlini,
G. (2014). The contribution of Utility-Scale Solar Energy to the global climate
regulation and its eects on local ecosystem services. Global Ecology and
Conservation, 2, 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.10.010
De Sousa, C., & D’Souza, L.-A. (2011). From Brownelds to Parkland–Elmhurst
Park and Fresh Kills Park, New York, NY: Sustainable Brownelds Revitalization
Best Practices. University of Illinois.
De Waal, R., & Stremke, S. (2014). Energy Transition: Missed Opportunities and
Emerging Challenges for Landscape Planning and Designing. Sustainability,
6(7), 4386–4415. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074386
De Wit, S., & Meeus, J. (2011). Een tweede jeugd voor traditionele boerenerven.
Tuin & Landschap, (24), 6–11.
Delaeld, G., Donnison, C., Roddis, P., Arvanitopoulos, T., Sfyridis, A., Dunnett,
S., … Logan, K. G. (2021). Conceptual framework for balancing society and
nature in net-zero energy transitions. Environmental Science & Policy, 125,
189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.021
Delicado, A., Figueiredo, E., & Silva, L. (2016). Community perceptions of
renewable energies in Portugal: Impacts on environment, landscape and
local development. Energy Research and Social Science, 13, 84–93. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.007
References | 197
R
Denholm, P., & Margolis, R. M. (2008). Land-use requirements and the per-
capita solar footprint for photovoltaic generation in the United States. Energy
Policy, 36(9), 3531–3543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.035
Devine-Wright, P. (2011a). From backyards to places: Public engagement
and the emplacement of renewable energy technologies. In P. Devine-
Wright (Ed.), Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation.
Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe.2011.24912bae.004
Devine-Wright, P. (2011b). Public engagement with large-scale renewable
energy technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, 2(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.89
Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Explaining “NIMBY” Objections to a Power Line: The
Role of Personal, Place Attachment and Project-Related Factors. Environment
and Behavior, 45(6), 761–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512440435
Devine-Wright, P., & Batel, S. (2013). Explaining public preferences for
high voltage pylon designs: An empirical study of perceived t in a rural
landscape. Land Use Policy, 31(2013), 640–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2012.09.011
Devine-Wright, P., Batel, S., Aas, O., Sovacool, B., LaBelle, M. C., & Ruud, A.
(2017). A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance
of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage. Energy Policy, 107,
27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.020
Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the
protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2010.01.008
Doubleday, K., Choi, B., Maksimovic, D., Deline, C., & Olalla, C. (2016). Recovery
of inter-row shading losses using dierential power-processing submodule
DC-DC converters. Solar Energy, 135, 512–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.06.013
Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationships
between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of
landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 465–474. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
Dupraz, C., Marrou, H., Talbot, G., Dufour, L., Nogier, A., & Ferard, Y. (2011).
Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land
use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes. Renewable Energy, 36(10), 2725–
2732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.005
Duurzaam Haren. (2018). Zorgboerderij de Mikkelhorst - Investeren in
zonnepanelen voor onze groene parel. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from
https://www.duurzaamharen.nl/project/polycultuur-zonnepark-de-
mikkelhorst/
D
198 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research
Published by : Academy of Management Stable. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Energietransitienota Duurzame Energie Achterhoek (2015). Retrieved July
8, 2017, from https://www.oostgelre.nl/bestand/energietransitienota-
duurzame-energieachterhoek
Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU). (1993). Attitudes towards wind
power. A survey of opinion in Cornwall and Devon. ETSU report W/13/00
354/038/REP Harwell: Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU).
European Commission. (2021). A European Green Deal: striving to be the rst
climate-neutral continent. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://ec.europa.
eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
European Parliament, & European Council. (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/2001
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use
of Energy from Renewable Sources. Ocial Journal of the European Union, L
328, 1–140. Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/2018-
12-21
Evans, G. (2014). Designing legacy and the legacy of design: London 2012 and
the Regeneration Games. Architectural Research Quarterly, 18(4), 353–366.
https://doi.org/Doi: 10.1017/s1359135515000081
Fagerholm, N., Raymond, C. M., Olafsson, A. S., Brown, G., Rinne, T.,
Hasanzadeh, K., … Kyttä, M. (2021). A methodological framework for analysis
of participatory mapping data in research, planning, and management.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 35(9), 1848–1875.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2020.1869747
Farina, A. (2006). Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Austral Ecology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01854.x
Fast, S., Mabee, W., Baxter, J., Christidis, T., Driver, L., Hill, S., … Tomkow, M.
(2016). Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes. Nature Energy,
1(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.28
Fernandez-Jimenez, L. A., Mendoza-Villena, M., Zorzano-Santamaria, P., Garcia-
Garrido, E., Lara-Santillan, P., Zorzano-Alba, E., & Falces, A. (2015). Site
selection for new PV power plants based on their observability. Renewable
Energy, 78, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.063
Ferrario, V., & Castiglioni, B. (2017). Visibility/invisibility in the “making” of
energy landscape. Strategies and policies in the hydropower development
of the Piave river (Italian Eastern Alps). Energy Policy, 108, 829–835. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.012
Firestone, J., & Kirk, H. (2019). A strong relative preference for wind turbines
in the United States among those who live near them. Nature Energy, 4(4),
311–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0347-9
References | 199
R
Fontaine, A. (2020). Debating the sustainability of solar energy: Examining
resource construction processes for local photovoltaic projects in France.
Energy Research and Social Science, 69, 101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2020.101725
Frankl, P. (1968). Principles of architectural history: the four phases of
architectural style, 1420-1900. MIT Press.
Frantál, B., Van der Horst, D., Martinát, S., Schmitz, S., Teschner, N., Silva, L., …
Roth, M. (2018). Spatial targeting, synergies and scale: Exploring the criteria
of smart practices for siting renewable energy projects. Energy Policy, 120,
85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.031
Freitas, S., & Brito, M. C. (2019). Non-cumulative only solar photovoltaics for
electricity load-matching. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 109,
271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.038
Frolova, M. (2010). Landscapes, water policy and the evolution of discourses
on hydropower in Spain. Landscape Research, 35(2), 235–257. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01426390903557956
Fthenakis, V., & Kim, H. C. (2009). Land use and electricity generation: A life-
cycle analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(6–7), 1465–
1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.017
Fürst, C., Luque, S., & Geneletti, D. (2017). Nexus thinking–how ecosystem
services can contribute to enhancing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral
coherence between land use, spatial planning and policy-making.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and
Management, 13(1), 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.139
6257
Gemeente Groningen. (2008). Routekaart Groningen Energieneutraal 2025
(Roadmap Groningen Energy neutral 2025).
Gemeente Groningen. (2011). Masterplan Groningen Energieneutraal
(Masterplan Groningen Energy neutral). Retrieved July 8, 2017, from https://
gemeente.groningen.nl/%0Dgroningen-geeft-energie
Gemeente Utrecht. (2011). Programma Utrechtse energie 2011–2014 (Energy
Program of Utrecht 2011–2014). Retrieved July 26, 2017, from https://
www.utrecht.nl/%0Dleadmin/uploads/documenten/9.digitaalloket/Milieu/
Programma-Utrechtse-%0DEnergie-denitief.pdf
Gemeinde Morbach. (2021). Gewerbegebiet Energielandschaft. Retrieved
September 17, 2021, from https://www.morbach.de/leben-arbeiten/
wirtschaft/gewerbegebiete/gewerbegebiet-energielandschaft/
Golroodbari, S. Z., & van Sark, W. (2020). Simulation of performance
dierences between oshore and land-based photovoltaic systems.
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 28(9), 873–886. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pip.3276
EFG
200 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Graham, M., Ates, S., Melathopoulos, A. P., Moldenke, A. R., DeBano, S. J.,
Best, L. R., & Higgins, C. W. (2021). Partial shading by solar panels delays
bloom, increases oral abundance during the late-season for pollinators in
a dryland, agrivoltaic ecosystem. Scientic Reports, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-021-86756-4
Grêt-Regamey, A., & Wissen-Hayek, U. (2013). Multicriteria decision analysis for
the planning and design of sustainable energy landscapes. In S. Stremke &
A. van den Dobbelsteen (Eds.), Sustainable energy landscapes: Designing,
planning and development (pp. 111–132). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, Altwegg, J., Sirn, E. A., van Strien, M. J., & Weibel,
B. (2017). Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—A spatial
decision support tool. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 206–219. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003
Guerin, T. (2017a). A case study identifying and mitigating the environmental
and community impacts from construction of a utility-scale solar
photovoltaic power plant in eastern Australia. Solar Energy, 146, 94–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.02.020
Guerin, T. (2017b). Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks
on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing
the regulatory burden. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 333–
348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.040
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2012). The links between biodiversity,
ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. Raaelli & C. Frid (Eds.),
Ecosystem Ecology (pp. 110–139). Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/
cbo9780511750458.007
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Common International Classication
of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the
Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting. Retrieved from www.cices.eu
Hastik, R., Basso, S., Geitner, C., Haida, C., Poljanec, A., Portaccio, A., … Walzer,
C. (2015). Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, 608–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.04.004
Haurant, P., Oberti, P., & Muselli, M. (2011). Multicriteria selection aiding
related to photovoltaic plants on farming elds on Corsica island: A real
case study using the ELECTRE outranking framework. Energy Policy, 39(2),
676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.040
Havinga, R., & der Nederlanden, H. (2018). Ruimte voor de Rivier - oogst
ruimtelijke kwaliteit. Utrecht.
Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational
planning for our times. London: Routledge.
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A., & Needham, B. (1999). European
developments in strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 7(3),
339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319908720522
References | 201
R
Hder, M. (2017). From NASA to EU: The evolution of the TRL scale in Public
Sector Innovation. Innovation Journal, 22(2), 1–23.
Heeres, N., van Dijk, T., Arts, J., & Tillema, T. (2017). Coping with interrelatedness
and fragmentation at the infrastructure/land-use interface: The potential
merits of a design approach. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1), 409–
435. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2016.883
Hekkenberg, M., & Lensink, S. M. (2013). 16% hernieuwbare energie in
2020–wanneer aanbesteden? (16% renewable energy in 2020–when
to put out to tender?) (ECN 6.00661). ECN. Retrieved from https://zoek.
ocielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-%0D212445.pdf.
Hernandez, R. R., Armstrong, A., Burney, J., Ryan, G., Moore-O’Leary, K.,
Diédhiou, I., … Kammen, D. M. (2019). Techno–ecological synergies of solar
energy for global sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 2(7), 560–568. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0309-z
Hernandez, R. R., Easter, S. B., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., Maestre, F. T., Tavassoli,
M., Allen, E. B., … Allen, M. F. (2014). Environmental impacts of utility-scale
solar energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 766–779.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041
Holland Solar. (2019). Gedragscode zon op land, 1–9. Retrieved from https://
hollandsolar.nl/u/les/gedragscode-zon-op-land.pdf
Hooimeijer, P., Kroon, H., & Luttik, J. (2001). Kwaliteit in meervoud. Gouda:
Habiforum, Expertisenetwerk Meervoudig Ruimtegebruik.
Hoolachan, A. (2017). Scalar Politics: Sustainability planning under Localism and
the delivery of London’s Olympic legacy. University of Cambridge. Retrieved
from https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/269398
Horner, R. M., & Clark, C. E. (2013). Characterizing variability and reducing
uncertainty in estimates of solar land use energy intensity. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.01.014
Hoversten, M. E., & Swaeld, S. R. (2019). Discursive moments: Reframing
deliberation and decision-making in alternative futures landscape
ecological planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 182, 22–33. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.005
Howard, D. C., Burgess, P. J., Butler, S. J., Carver, S. J., Cockerill, T., Coleby, A.
M., … Scholeeld, P. (2013). Energyscapes: Linking the energy system and
ecosystem services in real landscapes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 55(0), 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.025
Hulsker, W., Wienhoven, M., van Diest, M., & Buijs, S. (2011). Evaluatie
ontwerpprocessen Ruimte voor de Rivier (Evaluation design processes Room
for the River). Rotterdam.
Hutchinson, P. (2015). Landscape , Power and Biopolitics A Foucauldian Analysis
of Freshkills Park , New York City. University of Canberra, Canberra. Retrieved
from http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/
GH
202 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Ingold, T. (1993). The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2),
152–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2016.1151458
Ioannidis, R., & Koutsoyiannis, D. (2020). A review of land use, visibility and
public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape
impact. Applied Energy, 276(March), 115367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.115367
IPCC. (2021). Technical Summary. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
IRENA. (2022). Energy Transition. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.
irena.org/energytransition
Jablonska, B., Epema, T., Willems, E., Visser, H., Opstelten, I., & Hub, E. (2011).
Innovative Concepts for Energy Neutral Districts in 2050. Petten: ECN.
Jain, P., Raina, G., Sinha, S., Malik, P., & Mathur, S. (2021). Agrovoltaics: Step
towards sustainable energy-food combination. Bioresource Technology
Reports, 15, 100766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100766
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016). Energy
justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research and Social Science, 11, 174–
182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004
Jones, M. (1991). The elusive reality of landscape. Concepts and approaches in
landscape research. Norsk Geogrask Tidsskrift, 45(4), 229–244. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00291959108552277
Jones, M. (2006). Landscape, law and justice - Concepts and
issues. Norsk Geogrask Tidsskrift, 60(1), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00291950600618726
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strous and
Giroux.
Kapetanakis, I. A., Kolokotsa, D., & Maria, E. A. (2014). Parametric analysis
and assessment of the photovoltaics’ landscape integration: Technical and
legal aspects. Renewable Energy, 67, 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.11.043
Kempenaar, A., Puerari, E., Pleijte, M., & van Buuren, M. (2021). Regional
design ateliers on ‘energy and space’: systemic transition arenas in energy
transition processes. European Planning Studies, 29(4), 762–778. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1781792
Kempenaar, A., & van den Brink, A. (2018). Regional designing: A strategic
design approach in landscape architecture. Design Studies, 54, 80–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.006
Klijn, F., de Bruin, D., de Hoog, M. C., Jansen, S., & Sijmons, D. (2013). Design
quality of room-for-the-river measures in the Netherlands: role and
assessment of the quality team (Q-team). International Journal of River Basin
References | 203
R
Management, 11(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2013.8114
18
Klijn, J. A. (1995). Hierarchical concepts in landscape ecology: pitfalls and
promises. Report 100. Wageningen, DLO Winand Staring Centre. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06623.x
Klimaatakkoord. (2019). National Climate Agreement the Netherlands. The
Hague. Retrieved from https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/documenten/
publicaties/2019/06/28/national-climate-agreement-the-netherlands
Kramarz, T., Park, S., & Johnson, C. (2021). Governing the dark side of
renewable energy: A typology of global displacements. Energy Research and
Social Science, 74, 101902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101902
Krznaric, R. (2021). The good ancestor: how to think long term in a short-term
world. London SE - xii, 323 p.: WH Allen, an imprint of Ebury Publishing.
Kühne, O. (2020). Landscape Conicts — A Theoretical Approach Based
on the Three Worlds Theory of Karl Popper and the Conict Theory
of Ralf Dahrendorf , Illustrated by the Example of the Energy System
Transformation in Germany. Sustainability, 12(17), 6772.
Kühne, O., Weber, F., & Berr, K. (2019). The productive potential and limits
of landscape conicts in light of Ralf Dahrendorf’s conict theory.
SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 10(19), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.13128/SMP-
25391
Landscape Institute. (2015). LI Awards 2015. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from
https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/awards/2015-li-awards/
Le Dû-Blayo, L. (2011). How Do We Accommodate New Land Uses in
Traditional Landscapes? Remanence of Landscapes, Resilience of Areas,
Resistance of People. Landscape Research, 36(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01426397.2011.583010
Leibenath, M., & Lintz, G. (2018). Understanding ‘landscape governance’: the
case of wind energy landscapes in Germany. Landscape Research, 43(4),
476–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1306624
Lenzholzer, S., Duchhart, I., & Koh, J. (2013). “Research through designing”
in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 120–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.003
Lenzholzer, S., Duchhart, I., & van den Brink, A. (2017). The relationship
between research and design. In A. van den Brink, D. Bruns, H. Tobi, & S.
Bell (Eds.), Research in Landscape Architecture: methods and methodology
(pp. 54–64). New York: Routledge.
Lindberg, O., Birging, A., Widn, J., & Lingfors, D. (2021). PV park site selection
for utility-scale solar guides combining GIS and power ow analysis: A case
study on a Swedish municipality. Applied Energy, 282(PA), 116086. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116086
IJKL
204 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Linnerud, K., Toney, P., Simonsen, M., & Holden, E. (2019). Does change
in ownership aect community attitudes toward renewable energy
projects? Evidence of a status quo bias. Energy Policy, 131, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.039
Lobaccaro, G., Croce, S., Lindkvist, C., Munari Probst, M. C., Scognamiglio,
A., Dahlberg, J., … Wall, M. (2019). A cross-country perspective on solar
energy in urban planning: Lessons learned from international case studies.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 108(March), 209–237. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.041
Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management:
Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42(3), 237–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.009
LoS Stadomland. (2020). Visie buitengebied: Het land van Wageningen,
Wageningen in het land. Wageningen.
Lovell, S. T., & Johnston, D. M. (2009). Designing landscapes for performance
based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society,
14(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02912-140144
Lovich, J. E., & Ennen, J. R. (2011). Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy
Development in the Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience, 61(12),
982–992. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8
Marres, N. (2015). Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and
Everyday Publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martín-Chivelet, N. (2016). Photovoltaic potential and land-use estimation
methodology. Energy, 94, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2015.10.108
Massi Pavan, A., Mellit, A., & De Pieri, D. (2011). The eect of soiling on energy
production for large-scale photovoltaic plants. Solar Energy, 85(5), 1128–
1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.03.006
May, J. (2008). On Technology, Ecology, and Urbanism. In M. Ballesteros (Ed.),
Verb Crisis (pp. 103–115). Barcelona: Actar Publishers.
Mehalic, B. (2009). Flat-plate & evacuated-tube solar thermal collectors.
Retrieved October 8, 2013 from http://www.homepower.com/articles/
solar-water-heating/equipment-products/at-plate-evacuated-tube-solar-
thermal-collectors.
Merida-Rodriguez, M., Lobon-Martin, R., & Perles-Rosello, M.-J. (2015). The
Production of Solar Photovoltaic Power and Its Landscape Dimension. In
M. Frolova, M.-J. Prados, & A. Nadaï (Eds.), Renewable Energies and European
Landscapes: Lessons from Southern European Cases (pp. 255–277). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9843-3
Milbrandt, A. R., Heimiller, D. M., Perry, A. D., & Field, C. B. (2014). Renewable
energy potential on marginal lands in the United States. Renewable
References | 205
R
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.08.079
Miller, C. A., Iles, A., & Jones, C. F. (2013). The Social Dimensions of Energy
Transitions. Science as Culture, 22(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/095
05431.2013.786989
Moore-O’Leary, K. A., Hernandez, R. R., Johnston, D. S., Abella, S. R., Tanner,
K. E., Swanson, A. C., … Lovich, J. E. (2017). Sustainability of utility-scale
solar energy - critical ecological concepts. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 15(7), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1517
Moore, S., & Hackett, E. J. (2016). The construction of technology and place:
Concentrating solar power conicts in the United States. Energy Research
and Social Science, 11, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.003
Mori, A. S. (2011). Ecosystem management based on natural disturbances:
Hierarchical context and non-equilibrium paradigm. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48(2), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01956.x
Müller, S., Backhaus, N., & Buchecker, M. (2020). Mapping meaningful places:
A tool for participatory siting of wind turbines in Switzerland? Energy
Research and Social Science, 69(April), 101573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2020.101573
Nadaï, A., & van der Horst, D. (2010). Introduction: Landscapes
of Energies. Landscape Research, 35(2), 143–155. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01426390903557543
Nassauer, J. I. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in
urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 221–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.014
Neal, P. (2011). Learning Legacy: Lessons learned from the London 2012 Games
construction project. Learning Legacy: Programme Management Framework.
London: Olympic Delivery Authority. Retrieved from http://learninglegacy.
independent.gov.uk/themes/health-and-safety/research-summaries.php
Neefjes, J., & Bleumink, H. (2021). De Veluwe: landschapsbiograe van
Nederlands grootste natuurgebied. Wageningen: Uitgeverij Blauwdruk.
Nikologianni, A., Moore, K., & Larkham, P. (2017). Eective ways to deliver
sustainability in urban and regional landscape strategies. Acta Horticulturae,
(1189), 131–136.
Nimmo, A., Frost, J., Shaw, S., & McNevin, N. (2011). Delivering London 2012:
master planning. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil
Engineering, 164(5), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2011.164.5.13
Nordberg, E. J., Julian Caley, M., & Schwarzkopf, L. (2021). Designing solar
farms for synergistic commercial and conservation outcomes. Solar Energy,
228(October), 586–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.09.090
NREL. (2013). National Center of Photovoltaics. Retrieved October 8, 2013,
from https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-eciency.html
LMN
206 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Olwig, K. R. (1996). Recovering the Substantive Nature of Landscape. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 86(4), 630–653.
Oudes, D., & Stremke, S. (2018). Spatial transition analysis: Spatially explicit
and evidence-based targets for sustainable energy transition at the local
and regional scale. Landscape and Urban Planning, 169, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.07.018
Oudes, D., & Stremke, S. (2020). Climate adaptation, urban regeneration and
browneld reclamation: a literature review on landscape quality in large-
scale transformation projects. Landscape Research, 45(7), 905–919. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1736995
Oudes, D., & Stremke, S. (2021). Next generation solar power plants ? A
comparative analysis of frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2021.111101
Owens, M. (2012). The impact of the London Olympics on the Lower Lea:
regeneration lost and found? Australian Planner, 49(3), 215–225. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07293682.2012.706963
Park, J. J., & Selman, P. (2011). Attitudes toward rural landscape change
in England. Environment and Behavior, 43(2), 182–206. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916509355123
Pascaris, A. S., Schelly, C., Burnham, L., & Pearce, J. M. (2021). Integrating solar
energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community,
and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Research and Social
Science, 75, 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102023
Pasqualetti, M. J. (2000). Morality , Space , and the Power of Wind-Energy
Landscapes. Geographical Review, 90(3), 381–394.
Pasqualetti, M. J. (2011a). Social barriers of renewable energy landscapes. The
Geographical Review, 101(2), 201–223.
Pasqualetti, M. J. (2011b). The Next Generation of Energy Landscapes. In
S. D. Brunn (Ed.), Engineering Earth (pp. 461–482). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-90-481-9920-4
Pasqualetti, M. J. (2013). Reading the Changing Energy Landscape. In
Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning, and Development (pp.
11–44). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13037-4 LK - https://wur.
on.worldcat.org/oclc/7349989676
Pasqualetti, M. J., & Brown, M. A. (2014). Ancient discipline, modern concern:
Geographers in the eld of energy and society. Energy Research and Social
Science, 1, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.016
Pasqualetti, M. J., Gipe, P., & Righter, R. W. (2002). Wind power in view: energy
landscapes in a crowded world. San Diego: Academic Press.
References | 207
R
Pasqualetti, M. J., & Stremke, S. (2018). Energy landscapes in a crowded world:
A rst typology of origins and expressions. Energy Research and Social
Science, 36, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.030
Pelle, M., Lucchi, E., Maturi, L., Astigarraga, A., & Causone, F. (2020). Coloured
BIPV technologies: Methodological and experimental assessment for
architecturally sensitive areas. Energies, 13(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13174506
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Why Do We Need Systematic Reviews? In
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (pp. 1–26). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887.ch1
Picchi, P., van Lierop, M., Geneletti, D., & Stremke, S. (2019). Advancing the
relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for
landscape planning and design: A literature review. Ecosystem Services,
35(August 2018), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.010
Pijlman, J., & Bosman, R. (2014). Nieuwe energie voor de Stedendriehoek.
Routekaart naar een energieneutrale regio Stedendriehoek in 2030. Retrieved
July 8, 2017, from http://www.regiostedendriehoek.nl/leefomgeving/
publicaties/%0Dnieuwe-energie-voor-de-stedendriehoek.pdf
Pinto-Correia, T., & Kristensen, L. (2013). Linking research to practice: The
landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives
of the rural. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 248–256. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.005
Pistoni, R. (2020). Landscape planning and design for energy transition in France
and the Netherlands: principles, practices, recommendations. Ecole Nationale
Supérieure de Paysage.
Poggi, F., Firmino, A., & Amado, M. (2018). Planning renewable energy in rural
areas: Impacts on occupation and land use. Energy, 155, 630–640. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.009
Pollak, L. (2007). Matrix Landscape: Construction of Identity in the Large Park.
In J. Czerniak, G. Hargreaves, & J. Beardsley (Eds.), Large Parks (pp. 87–119).
New York: Princeton Architectural Press New York.
Prados, M. J. (2010). Renewable energy policy and landscape management in
Andalusia, Spain: The facts. Energy Policy, 38(11), 6900–6909. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.005
Pringle, A. M., Handler, R. M., & Pearce, J. M. (2017). Aquavoltaics: Synergies
for dual use of water area for solar photovoltaic electricity generation
and aquaculture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 572–584.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.191
Province of Flevoland. (2016). Regioplan Windenergie Zuidelijk en
Oostelijk Flevoland. Lelystad. Retrieved from https://www.evoland.
nl/getmedia/720306d8-6fa8-45eb-86a4-490be4c65ddb/Regioplan-
Windenergie-dv.pdf
OP
208 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Randle-Boggis, R. J., White, P. C. L., Cruz, J., Parker, G., Montag, H., Scurlock,
J. M. O., & Armstrong, A. (2020). Realising co-benets for natural capital
and ecosystem services from solar parks: A co-developed, evidence-based
approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 125, 109775. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109775
Rasch, E. D. D., & Köhne, M. (2017). Practices and imaginations of energy
justice in transition. A case study of the Noordoostpolder, the Netherlands.
Energy Policy, 107, 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.037
Redeker, C. (2018). Rhine Cities - Urban Flood Integration (UFI): German and
Dutch Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. A+BE | Architecture and the
Built Environment; No 4 (2018): Rhine Cities - Urban Flood Integration (UFI).
Riaz, M. H., Imran, H., Younas, R., & Butt, N. Z. (2021). The optimization of
vertical bifacial photovoltaic farms for ecient agrivoltaic systems. Solar
Energy, 230, 1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.10.051
Rijke, J., van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., & Ashley, R. (2012). Room for the
river: Delivering integrated river basin management in the netherlands.
International Journal of River Basin Management, 10(4), 369–382. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15715124.2012.739173
Roddis, P., Carver, S., Dallimer, M., Norman, P., & Ziv, G. (2018). The role of
community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar
farms: An energy justice analysis. Applied Energy, 226, 353–364. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.087
Roddis, P., Roelich, K., Tran, K., Carver, S., Dallimer, M., & Ziv, G. (2020). What
shapes community acceptance of large-scale solar farms? A case study of
the UK’s rst ‘nationally signicant’ solar farm. Solar Energy, 209, 235–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.08.065
Rodrigues, M., Montañs, C., & Fueyo, N. (2010). A method for the assessment
of the visual impact caused by the large-scale deployment of renewable-
energy facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(4), 240–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.004
Rodriguez, J.-F. (2012). Hydropower landscapes and tourism development
in the Pyrenees. Revue de Géographie Alpine, (100–2), 0–16. https://doi.
org/10.4000/rga.1819
Roth, M., Eiter, S., Röhner, S., Kruse, A., Schmitz, S., Frantál, B., … Van der Horst,
D. (2018). Renewable Energy and Landscape Quality. Jovis Verlag GmbH.
Russell, A., & Firestone, J. (2021). What’s love got to do with it? Understanding
local cognitive and aective responses to wind power projects. Energy
Research and Social Science, 71, 101833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2020.101833
RVO. (2022). Kenmerken SDE++. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://www.
rvo.nl/subsidie-en-nancieringswijzer/sde/aanvragen/kenmerken
References | 209
R
Ryghaug, M., Skjølsvold, T. M., & Heidenreich, S. (2018). Creating energy
citizenship through material participation. Social Studies of Science, 48(2),
283–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718770286
Salak, B., Lindberg, K., Kienast, F., & Hunziker, M. (2021). How landscape-
technology t aects public evaluations of renewable energy infrastructure
scenarios. A hybrid choice model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 143, 110896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110896
Sánchez-Pantoja, N., Vidal, R., & Pastor, M. C. (2018). Aesthetic impact of solar
energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 98, 227–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.021
Scannell, L., & Giord, R. (2010). Dening place attachment: A tripartite
organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
Schindele, S., Trommsdor, M., Schlaak, A., Obergfell, T., Bopp, G., Reise, C., …
Weber, E. (2020). Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic
analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications. Applied
Energy, 265, 114737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114737
Schindler, B. Y., Blaustein, L., Lotan, R., Shalom, H., Kadas, G. J., & Seifan, M.
(2018). Green roof and photovoltaic panel integration: Eects on plant and
arthropod diversity and electricity production. Journal of Environmental
Management, 225, 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.017
Schulz, C., & Skinner, J. (2022). Hydropower benet-sharing and resettlement :
A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 83, 102342. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102342
Scognamiglio, A. (2016). “Photovoltaic landscapes”: Design and assessment.
A critical review for a new transdisciplinary design vision. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 629–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.10.072
Selman, P. (2006). Planning at the landscape scale. London: Routledge.
Retrieved from http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0510/2005008165.html
Selman, P. (2009). Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability:
Science, Practice and Policy, 5(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733
.2009.11908035
Selman, P. (2010). Learning to love the landscapes of carbon-
neutrality. Landscape Research, 35(2), 157–171. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01426390903560414
Semeraro, T., Pomes, A., Del Giudice, C., Negro, D., & Aretano, R. (2018).
Planning ground based utility scale solar energy as green infrastructure
to enhance ecosystem services. Energy Policy, 117(August 2017), 218–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.050
Sherren, K. (2021). From Climax Thinking toward a Non-equilibrium Approach
to Public Good Landscape Change. In J. B. Jacquet, J. H. Haggerty, & G. L.
RS
210 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Theodori (Eds.), Energy Impacts: A Multidisciplinary Exploration of North
American Energy Development (pp. 17–44). University Press of Colorado.
Sherren, K., Beckley, T. M., Parkins, J. R., Stedman, R. C., Keilty, K., & Morin,
I. (2016). Learning (or living) to love the landscapes of hydroelectricity in
Canada: Eliciting local perspectives on the Mactaquac Dam via headpond
boat tours. Energy Research and Social Science, 14, 102–110. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.02.003
Sherren, K., Parkins, J. R., Owen, T., & Terashima, M. (2019). Does noticing
energy infrastructure inuence public support for energy development?
Evidence from a national survey in Canada. Energy Research and Social
Science, 51, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.01.014
Shirai, H. (2014). The evolving vision of the Olympic legacy : the development of
the mixed-use Olympic Parks of Sydney and London. The London School of
Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/956/
Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Keller, C. (2014). Why have some people changed
their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?
Energy Policy, 69, 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.026
Sijmons, D. (1990). Regional planning as a strategy. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 18(3–4), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90014-S
Sijmons, D., Hocks, B., Kuijers, T., Norkunaite, G., Witte, J., Vermeulen, M., …
Rijpers, Y. (2017). Energie en Ruimte - Een nationaal perspectief. Rotterdam:
Vereniging Deltametropool.
Sijmons, D., Hugtenburg, J., van Hoorn, A., & Feddes, F. (2014). Landscape and
Energy: Designing Transition. Rotterdam: nai010 publishers.
Sinha, P., Homan, B., Sakers, J., & Althouse, L. (2018). Best Practices in
Responsible Land Use for Improving Biodiversity at a Utility-Scale Solar
Facility. Case Studies in the Environment, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/
cse.2018.001123
Smil, V. (2010). Power Density Primer : Understanding the Spatial Dimension
of the Unfolding Transition to Renewable Electricity Generation (Part I –
Denitions).
Smith, A. (2014a). “De-Risking” East London: Olympic Regeneration Planning
2000–2012. European Planning Studies, 22(9), 1919–1939. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09654313.2013.812065
Smith, A. (2014b). From green park to theme park? Evolving legacy visions for
London’s Olympic Park. Architectural Research Quarterly, 18(4), 315–323.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135515000056
Sociaal-Economische Raad. (2013). Energieakkoord voor duurzame groei. Den
Haag.
Sovacool, B. K. (2014). What are we doing here? Analyzing fteen years of
energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda.
Energy Research and Social Science, 1, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2014.02.003
References | 211
R
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Sorrell, S. (2018). Promoting novelty, rigor, and
style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate
methods and research design. Energy Research and Social Science, 45, 12–
42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007
Sovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J., Amir, S., Geels, F. W., Hirsh, R., Rodriguez, L., …
Yearley, S. (2020). Sociotechnical agendas : Reviewing future directions for
energy and climate research. Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101617
Steenbergen, C. M. (2008). Composing landscapes : analysis, typology and
experiments for design. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Sovacool, B. K., Bonaiuto, M., Matthies, E., Matti,
S., … Pahl, S. (2021). A Research Agenda to Better Understand the Human
Dimensions of Energy Transitions, 12, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2021.672776
Steinitz, C. (1990). A Framework for Theory Applicable to the Education of
Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals).
Landscape Journal, 9(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.9.2.136
Stiles, R. (1994). Landscape theory: a missing link between landscape planning
and landscape design? Landscape and Urban Planning, 30(3), 139–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90053-1
Stober, D., Suškevičs, M., Eiter, S., Müller, S., Martinát, S., & Buchecker, M.
(2021). What is the quality of participatory renewable energy planning in
Europe? A comparative analysis of innovative practices in 25 projects. Energy
Research and Social Science, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101804
Stoms, D. M., Dashiell, S. L., & Davis, F. W. (2013). Siting solar energy
development to minimize biological impacts. Renewable Energy, 57, 289–
298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.055
Storie, J. T., & Külvik, M. (2019). Transformative actions on communities and
landscapes: the case of Kaldabruna village. Landscape Research, 44(3), 337–
350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1585769
Stremke, S. (2015). Sustainable Energy Landscape: Implementing Energy
Transition in the Physical Realm. Encyclopedia of Environmental Management,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-EEM-120053717
Stremke, S., & Koh, J. (2011). Integration of Ecological and Thermodynamic
Concepts in the Design of Sustainable Energy Landscapes. Landscape
Journal, 30(2), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.30.2.194
Stremke, S., Koh, J., Neven, K., & Boekel, A. (2012). Integrated Visions (Part
II): Envisioning Sustainable Energy Landscapes. European Planning Studies,
20(4), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.665617
Stremke, S., & Picchi, P. (2017). Co-designing energy landscapes: application
of participatory mapping and Geographic Information Systems in the
exploration of low carbon futures. Handbook on the Geographies of Energy,
368–379.
S
212 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Stremke, S., & Schöbel, S. (2019). Research through design for energy
transition: two case studies in Germany and The Netherlands. Smart
and Sustainable Built Environment, 8(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SASBE-02-2018-0010
Stremke, S., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainable energy
landscapes : designing, planning, and development. Boca Raton, FL [etc.]:
CRC.
Stremke, S., van Kann, F., & Koh, J. (2012). Integrated Visions (Part I):
Methodological Framework for Long-term Regional Design. European
Planning Studies, 20(2), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.6
50909
Strzelecka, M., Rechciński, M., Tusznio, J., Akhshik, A., & Grodzińska-Jurczak,
M. (2021). Environmental justice in Natura 2000 conservation conicts:
The case for resident empowerment. Land Use Policy, 107. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105494
Sugarman, J. (2009). Environmental and community health: A reciprocal
relationship. In: Campbell, Lindsay; Wiesen, Anne, Eds. Restorative
Commons: Creating Health and Well-Being through Urban Landscapes.
Gen. Tech Rep. NRS-P-39. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northern Research Station: 138-153.
Thayer, R. L. (1994). Gray world, green heart: technology, nature, and sustainable
landscape. New York: Wiley.
Thayer, R. L., & Freeman, C. M. (1987). Altamont: Public perceptions of a wind
energy landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14(C), 379–398. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(87)90051-X
TNO. (n.d.). Solar Visuals - Aesthetic Solar Panels. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from
https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-areas/techtransfer/spin-offs/solar-visuals-
aesthetic-solar-panels/
Toledo, C., & Scognamiglio, A. (2021). Agrivoltaic Systems Design and
Assessment : A Critical Review , and a Descriptive Model towards a
Sustainable Landsape Vision (Three-Dimensional Agrivoltaic Patterns).
Sustainability, 13(12), 6871.
Tolli, M., Recanatesi, F., Piccinno, M., & Leone, A. (2016). The assessment of
aesthetic and perceptual aspects within environmental impact assessment
of renewable energy projects in Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 57, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.10.005
Torres-Sibille, A. del C., Cloquell-Ballester, V. A., Cloquell-Ballester, V. A., &
Artacho Ramírez, M. Á. (2009). Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power
plants: An objective and a subjective approach. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 13(5), 986–999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.012
References | 213
R
Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary
systems approach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning,
57(3–4), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00200-6
Trommsdor, M., Kang, J., Reise, C., Schindele, S., Bopp, G., Ehmann, A., …
Obergfell, T. (2021). Combining food and energy production: Design of an
agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegetable farming in Germany.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110694
Trutnevyte, E., Stauacher, M., & Scholz, R. W. (2011). Supporting energy
initiatives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios
and multi-criteria assessment. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7884–7895. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.038
Tsai, C. Y., & Tsai, C. Y. (2020). See-through, light-through, and color modules
for large-area tandem amorphous/microcrystalline silicon thin-lm solar
modules: Technology development and practical considerations for
building-integrated photovoltaic applications. Renewable Energy, 145, 2637–
2646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.029
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Stean-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005).
Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensication and biodiversity -
Ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8(8), 857–874. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x
Tsoutsos, T., Frantzeskaki, N., & Gekas, V. (2005). Environmental impacts from
the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy, 33(3), 289–296. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and Place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Turney, D., & Fthenakis, V. (2011). Environmental impacts from the
installation and operation of large-scale solar power plants. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), 3261–3270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2011.04.023
United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. Paris. Retrieved from http://unfccc.
int/les/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_
agreement.pdf
Urgenda. (2015). The Urgenda climate case against the Dutch government.
Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/
Van den Brink, A., & Bruns, D. (2012). Strategies for Enhancing Landscape
Architecture Research. Landscape Research, 6397(July 2014), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.711129
Van den Brink, A., Bruns, D., Tobi, H., & Bell, S. (2017). Research in
Landscape Architecture: methods and methodology. (A. van den Brink,
STUV
214 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
D. Bruns, H. Tobi, & S. Bell, Eds.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/
doi:10.4324/9781315396903
Van den Brink, M., Edelenbos, J., van den Brink, A., Verweij, S., van Etteger, R.,
& Busscher, T. (2019). To draw or to cross the line? The landscape architect
as boundary spanner in Dutch river management. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 186, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.018
Van den Dobbelsteen, A., Broersma, S., & Stremke, S. (2011). Energy Potential
Mapping for Energy-Producing Neighborhoods. International Journal of
Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 2(2), 170–176.
https://doi.org/10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.2.170
Van der Horst, D., & Vermeylen, S. (2011). Local rights to landscape in the
global moral economy of carbon. Landscape Research, 36(4), 455–470.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.582941
Van Etteger, R. (2016). Beyond the visible : prolegomenon to an
aesthetics of designed landscapes. Wageningen University. https://doi.
org/10.18174/385562
Van Vuurde, M., Gorissen, F., de Heer, J., de Jong, J., de Bonth, L., Sloo, L.,
& Sibbing, S. (2019). ZonneWijzer: Gelderse Gebiedsgids voor zonnevelden.
Arnhem: Gelders Energieakkoord (GEA).
Van Zalk, J., & Behrens, P. (2018). The spatial extent of renewable and non-
renewable power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities
and their application in the U.S. Energy Policy, 123(August), 83–91. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023
Vicenzotti, V., Jorgensen, A., Qviström, M., & Swaeld, S. (2016). Forty years of
Landscape Research. Landscape Research, 41(4), 388–407. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/01426397.2016.1156070
Vitruvius, P. (n.d.). De Architectura (translated by Morris Hicky Morgan, 1960. The
Ten Books on Architecture. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-20645-9).
Vizzari, M. (2011). Spatial modelling of potential landscape quality. Applied
Geography, 31(1), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.001
Von Haaren, C., Warren-Kretzschmar, B., Milos, C., & Werthmann, C.
(2014). Opportunities for design approaches in landscape planning.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
LANDURBPLAN.2014.06.012
Wageningen University. (2021). In My Backyard Please! Naar maatschappelijke
acceptatie van in het landschap geïntegreerde zonneparken. Retrieved
March 9, 2022, from https://www.wur.nl/nl/project/In-My-Backyard-Please-
Naar-maatschappelijke-acceptatie-van-in-het-landschap-geintegreerde-
zonneparken.htm
Wang, Q., M’Ikiugu, M. M., & Kinoshita, I. (2014). A GIS-based approach
in support of spatial planning for renewable energy: A case study of
References | 215
R
Fukushima, Japan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 6(4), 2087–2117. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su6042087
Waters, J. (2016). Producing space and reproducing capital in London’s Olympic
Park: an ethnography of actually-existing abstract space. Department of
Anthropology. University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/
id/eprint/65087/
Wehrle, S., Gruber, K., & Schmidt, J. (2021). The cost of undisturbed landscapes.
Energy Policy, 159, 112617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112617
Weller, R. (2008). Planning by Design Landscape Architectural Scenarios for a
Rapidly Growing City. Journal of Landscape Architecture, (6), 37–41. https://
doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2008.9723401
Willis, G. B., & Artino, A. R. (2013). What Do Our Respondents Think We’re
Asking? Using Cognitive Interviewing to Improve Medical Education
Surveys. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(3), 353–356. https://doi.
org/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00154.1
Windemer, R. (2019). Considering time in land use planning: An assessment
of end-of-life decision making for commercially managed onshore
wind schemes. Land Use Policy, 87, 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2019.104024
Windemer, R., & Cowell, R. (2021). Are the impacts of wind energy reversible?
Critically reviewing the research literature, the governance challenges and
presenting an agenda for social science. Energy Research & Social Science,
79, 102162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102162
Winnubst, M. H. (2011). Turbulent waters: cross-scale conict and collaboration
in river landscape planning. Nijmegen: PhD thesis.
Wissen Hayek, U., Spielhofer, R., Salak, B., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., Thrash, T., …
Gret-Regamey, A. (2019). ENERGYSCAPE – Recommendations for a Landscape
Strategy for Renewable Energy Systems Recommendations for a Landscape
Strategy. Zurich. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000383049
Wolsink, M. (2007a). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair
decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of
non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2692–2704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2006.12.002
Wolsink, M. (2007b). Wind power implementation: The nature of public
attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives”. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1188–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2005.10.005
Wolsink, M. (2017). Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy
and creating space for tting infrastructure within landscapes. Landscape
Research, 6397, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1358360
Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of
renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy,
35(5), 2683–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001
VW
216 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Applied social
research methods series (4th ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. https://
doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e
Yuan, M. H., & Lo, S. L. (2022). Principles of food-energy-water nexus
governance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 155, 111937.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111937
Ziar, H., Prudon, B., Lin, F. Y., Roeen, B., Heijkoop, D., Stark, T., … Isabella,
O. (2021). Innovative oating bifacial photovoltaic solutions for inland water
areas. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 29(7), 725–743.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3367
Zon in Landschap. (2022). Een nationaal consortium voor innovatie en
onderzoek. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://zoninlandschap.nl
References | 217
R
YZ
Wind park Egmond aan Zee, the rst Dutch o-shore wind park in the North
sea, the Netherlands (source: author).
Appendices
220 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Appendices | 221
A
Appendix A
Technology
Location/
land use
Type of
constraint Constraint
Gross
potential
(PJ)
Reduced
potential
(PJ)
Inuence
of
constraint
(%)
Asphalt
collector
roads physical unt shape of object 2,37 100%
Subtotal 4,97 2,37 100%
Solar
thermal
collector
Rooftops of
residential
buildings
physical unt shape and unt
orientation of building
0,89 96%
endogenous
policy
settlements with
heritage status
0,03 3%
normative landmarked buildings
(castles)
< 0,01 1%
Subtotal 1,62 0,92 100%
PV panels Rooftops of
residential
buildings
physical unt shape and unt
orientation of building
5,04 96%
endogenous
policy
settlements with
heritage status
0,16 3%
normative landmarked buildings
(castles)
0,03 1%
Subtotal 7,20 5,23 100%
Rooftops of
commercial
buildings
and industry
physical unt shape and unt
orientation of building
1,11 99,0%
endogenous
policy
settlements with
heritage status
< 0,01 1,0%
Subtotal 2,76 1,11 100%
Rooftops
of public
buildings
physical unt shape and unt
orientation of building
0,23 98%
endogenous
policy
settlements with
heritage status
< 0,01 2%
Subtotal 0,58 0,24 100%
222 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Technology
Location/
land use
Type of
constraint Constraint
Gross
potential
(PJ)
Reduced
potential
(PJ)
Inuence
of
constraint
(%)
Agricultural
land
normative Protected landscape:
national landscape
South-Limburg
53,96 66%
physical north orientation 14,33 17%
normative food production 9,86 12%
physical steep slope 2,96 4%
physical unt shape of landmass 1,22 1%
Subtotal 83,42 82,33 100%
Fallow land physical unt shape of landmass 0,01 100%
Subtotal 0,12 0,01 100%
Sand mining
area
physical slope 0,76 63%
physical north orientation 0,28 23%
physical unt shape of landmass 0,16 13%
Subtotal 2,61 1,20 100%
Landll physical slope 0,05 49%
physical north orientation 0,04 35%
physical irregular shape of
landmass
0,02 16%
Subtotal 0,27 0,11 100%
Railway
tracks
normative Protected landscape:
national landscape
South-Limburg
0,18 100%
Subtotal 0,52 0,18 100%
Surface
water
physical unt shape of water
surface
0,46 64%
normative ponds and lakes for
leisure use
0,26 36%
Subtotal 1,05 0,72 100%
Sound
barriers
physical unt shape and unt
orientation of object
0,01 100%
Subtotal 0,02 0,01 100%
TOTAL 105,17 94,43
Appendices | 223
potentials technology provisionconstraints
physical endogenous policy normative
rooftops of residences
rooftops of public buildings
agricultural land
agricultural land
sand mining area
landfi ll
fallow land
landfi ll
sand mining area
surface water
roads
steep slope
unfi t shape of
landmass
solar thermal collector PJheat
PJheat
PJelectric
Photo-voltaïc (PV)
panels
0.0054 PJ/ha/yr (15%)
0.0126 PJ/ha/yr (35%)
≥ 1,0 ha
north orientation
337.5º - 22.5º
≥ 10 º excluded
90%
15%
10m average width
railroad
sound barriers
rooftops of commercial
buildings and industry
85%
50%
unfi t shape of water
surface
50%
unfi t shape and unfi t
orientation of object
unfi t shape of object
50%
Asphalt solar collector
0.009 PJ/ha/yr (25%)
A
Appendix B
Flowchart for solar energy in the reference scenario
potentials technology provisionconstraints
physical endogenous policy normative
rooftops of residences
rooftops of public buildings
agricultural land
agricultural land
sand mining area
landfi ll
fallow land
landfi ll
sand mining area
surface water
roads
unfi t shape &
orientation
steep slope
unfi t shape of
landmass
settlements with
heritage status landmarked buildings
solar thermal collector PJheat
PJheat
PJelectric
Photo-voltaïc (PV)
panels
30% 50% 0%
0.0054 PJ/ha/yr (15%)
0.0126 PJ/ha/yr (35%)
≥ 1,0 ha
north orientation
337.5º - 22.5º
≥ 10 º excluded
90%
15%
10m average width
railroad
sound barriers
rooftops of commercial
buildings and industry
85%
Protected landscape
0%
50%
unfi t shape of water
surface
50%
unfi t shape and unfi t
orientation of object
Ponds and lakes for
leisure use
50%
unfi t shape of object
50%
Asphalt solar collector
0.009 PJ/ha/yr (25%)
Protected landscape
0%
Food production
10%
Appendix C
Flowchart for solar energy in the desired scenario
224 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11) Southwick
10) Monreale
9) Midden-Groningen
8) Mühlenfeld
7) Sinnegreide
6) Laarberg
5) Hemau
4) Southill
3) Valentano
2) Kwekerij
1) Gänsdorf
Appendix D
Share of existing eye-level vegetation (e.g. forest patches or
hedgerows) along the edge of the solar landscapes
Appendices | 225
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11) Southwick
10) Monreale
9) Midden-Groningen
8) Mühlenfeld
7) Sinnegreide
6) Laarberg
5) Hemau
4) Southill
3) Valentano
2) Kwekerij
1) Gänsdorf
Only fence Removal of existing landscape features
Enhancing of existing landscape features New landscape f eatures
A
Appendix E
In addition to fencing, three types of measures were applied along
the edge of the solar landscapes: removal of existing landscape
features, enhancing existing landscape features and new landscape
features.
226 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Appendix F
Presence of functions in the cases.
Section Division Code
Provisioning (Biotic) Biomass 1.1.1.1
Biomass 1.1.1.2
Biomass 1.1.3.1
Provisioning (Abiotic) Non-aqueous natural abiotic ecosystem outputs 4.3.2.4
Regulation &
Maintenance (Abiotic)
Transformation of biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystems 5.1.2.1
Regulation &
Maintenance (Biotic)
Transformation of biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystems 2.1.2.3
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.1.3
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.2.1
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.2.2
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.2.3
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.4.2
Cultural (Biotic) Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.1.1
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.1.2
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.2.1
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.2.2
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.2.4
Indirect, remote, often indoor interactions with living systems that
do not require presence in the environmental setting
3.2.2.1
Cultural (Abiotic) Indirect, remote, often indoor interactions with physical systems
that do not require presence in the environmental setting
6.2.2.1
Appendices | 227
A
Section Division Code
Provisioning (Biotic) Biomass 1.1.1.1
Biomass 1.1.1.2
Biomass 1.1.3.1
Provisioning (Abiotic) Non-aqueous natural abiotic ecosystem outputs 4.3.2.4
Regulation &
Maintenance (Abiotic)
Transformation of biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystems 5.1.2.1
Regulation &
Maintenance (Biotic)
Transformation of biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystems 2.1.2.3
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.1.3
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.2.1
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.2.2
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.2.3
Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions 2.2.4.2
Cultural (Biotic) Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.1.1
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.1.2
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.2.1
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.2.2
Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with living systems that
depend on presence in the environmental setting
3.1.2.4
Indirect, remote, often indoor interactions with living systems that
do not require presence in the environmental setting
3.2.2.1
Cultural (Abiotic) Indirect, remote, often indoor interactions with physical systems
that do not require presence in the environmental setting
6.2.2.1
Simple descriptor
Absolute
presence
Relative
presence
Any crops and fruits grown by humans for food; food crops 545%
Material from plants, fungi, algae or bacterial that we can use 218%
Livestock raised in housing and/or grazed outdoors 436%
Solar power 11 100%
Natural protection 327%
Screening unsightly things 982%
Regulating the ows of water in our environment 655%
Pollinating our fruit trees and other plants 982%
Spreading the seeds of wild plants 19%
Providing habitats for wild plants and animals that can be useful to us 11 100%
Ensuring the organic matter in our soils is maintained 19%
Using the environment for sport and recreation; using nature to help
stay t
436%
Watching plants and animals where they live; using nature to destress 545%
Researching nature 327%
Studying nature 545%
The beauty of nature 655%
The things in nature that we think should be conserved 764%
Things in the physical environment that we think are important to
others and future generations
436%
228 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Appendix G
Societal consideration Category
Loss of existing land use / land availability Economic
Tourism and eect on local economy Economic
Sustained balance between energy and food Economic
Sucient capacity on the grid Economic
Landscape fragmentation (creating barriers for movement of species
and their genes)
Nature
Soil disturbance (clearing of soil) Nature
Recovery time Nature
Microclimatic impact (heat eect PV modules) Nature
Interference with ora and fauna / wildlife impact Nature
Control of water surface runo Nature
Integration of PV pattern with landscape pattern Landscape
Articializing of landscape (through panels, supporting structures and
electrical infrastructure)
Landscape
Loss of greenspace for exercise and relaxation (recreation) Landscape
Novelty (peculiarity, landmark) in landscape Landscape
Impact on (historic) landscape character Landscape
Visibility / visual impact of SPP (including glare) Landscape
Place attachment (expression of love, emotional bond, strong
aection to site or wider area)
Landscape
Aesthetic impact (color, fractality, geometry) Landscape
Appendices | 229
A
Literature
(Calvert, Pearce, & Mabee, 2013; Chiabrando et al., 2011; De Laurentis & Pearson, 2018; Denholm & Margolis,
2008; Hastik et al., 2015; Ioannidis & Koutsoyiannis, 2020; Lobaccaro et al., 2019; Roddis et al., 2020;
Scognamiglio, 2016)
(Roddis et al., 2020)
(Toledo & Scognamiglio, 2021)
(De Laurentis & Pearson, 2018; Fontaine, 2020; Lindberg, Birging, Widn, & Lingfors, 2021)
(Hernandez et al., 2014; Lobaccaro et al., 2019; Scognamiglio, 2016)
(Hernandez et al., 2014; Moore-O’Leary et al., 2017)
(Roddis et al., 2020; Scognamiglio, 2016; Turney & Fthenakis, 2011)
(Chiabrando et al., 2009)
(Chiabrando et al., 2009; Fontaine, 2020; Hastik et al., 2015; Hernandez et al., 2014; Lovich & Ennen, 2011;
Randle-Boggis et al., 2020; Roddis et al., 2020; Turney & Fthenakis, 2011)
(Scognamiglio, 2016)
(Lobaccaro et al., 2019; Merida-Rodriguez et al., 2015; Scognamiglio, 2016)
(Apostol, Palmer, et al., 2017; Chiabrando et al., 2011; Haurant et al., 2011; Hernandez et al., 2014; Lobaccaro
et al., 2019; Merida-Rodriguez et al., 2015)
(Fontaine, 2020; Roddis et al., 2020)
(Bevk & Golobič, 2020)
(Apostol, Palmer, et al., 2017; Lobaccaro et al., 2019; Roddis et al., 2020; Scognamiglio, 2016)
(Apostol, Palmer, et al., 2017; Bevk & Golobič, 2020; Carullo et al., 2013; Chiabrando et al., 2011; Fernandez-
Jimenez et al., 2015; Fontaine, 2020; Lobaccaro et al., 2019; Roddis et al., 2020; Scognamiglio, 2016; Stremke
& Schöbel, 2019; Tolli, Recanatesi, Piccinno, & Leone, 2016; Tsoutsos et al., 2005)
(Carlisle, Kane, Solan, & Joe, 2014; Moore & Hackett, 2016; Roddis et al., 2020)
(Kapetanakis et al., 2014; Sánchez-Pantoja et al., 2018; Scognamiglio, 2016; Torres-Sibille et al., 2009)
230 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Appendix H
Overview of the spatial properties across the cases. The spatial
properties were based upon earlier research (Oudes & Stremke,
2021) and can be categorized as properties that are predominantly
related to solar infrastructure, visibility, multifunctionality and
or landscape considerations, while other properties can be linked to
multiple groups of considerations.
Category Spatial property
Economic (E)
Nature (N)
Landscape (L)
Exemplary case
Solar infrastructure Adjustment of system layout to existing plots x11
Self-referential patch conguration x 6
Landscape aligned patch conguration x19
Incidental patch conguration x x x 5
Decreased patch density x x 17
Adjustment of array orientation to parcellation x x 12
Adjustment of array orientation to crop x20
Visibility Reduced visibility x 1
Enhanced visibility x 2
Multifunctionality Ecological features added adjacent to solar infrastructure x10
Ecological features added beneath or between solar
infrastructure
x 8
Built faunal structures x19
Adjusted fence permeability x 4
Educational features x12
Vehicle storage or charging x 6
Appendices | 231
A
1. Solarfeld Gänsdorf
2. Solarpark De Kwekerij
3. Valentano
4. Southill Solar
5. Solar park Hemau
6. Zonnepark Laarberg
7. Sinnegreide
8. Solarpark Mühlenfeld
9. Zonnepark Midden-Groningen
10. Monreale
11. Southwick Estate Solar Farm
12. Energielandschaft Morbach
13. San Gabriele
14. Energie- und Technologiepark Eggebek
15. Merston Community Solar Farm
16. Zonnepark ‘t Oor
17. Eco-zonnepark Ubbena
18. Sawmills Solar Farm
19. Verwood Solar Farm
20. Babberich Agri-PV
L L LLLLL L LLL
LL
L LLLLLLLL
N NEENN L
LLLN N
EE L
E
LLLLLLLLLLLL L L L
L L L LL
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NN N NN NNNNN
N N NNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNN N N N
LLLLLL L L
LLLLL
232 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Category Spatial property
Economic (E)
Nature (N)
Landscape (L)
Exemplary case
Recreational facilities x 2
Crop production adjacent to solar infrastructure x10
Crop production beneath or between solar infrastructure x20
Fruit orchard and/or vegetable gardens x x 7
Livestock for productive purposes x 3
Livestock for ecological management x 5
Providing water storage capacity x 6
Utilizing water storage capacity for other purposes x x 2
Enhancing or recovering of waterways x 7
Other RET present x14
Other commercial activities present x12
Access within SPP x 2
Access close to SPP x16
Access close to SPP hardly or not possible xxx
SPP as node in local or regional recreational infrastructure x 8
Temporality Reversibility to previous landscape conditions x 9
Reversibility and improvement of ecosystem services xxx15
Continued synergy between PV and existing land use x20
New function after decommissioning x x 2
Retaining existing vegetation xxx18
Retaining cultural-historical artefacts x 5
Referencing to cultural-historical artefacts x13
Appendices | 233
A
Category Spatial property
Economic (E)
Nature (N)
Landscape (L)
Exemplary case
Recreational facilities x 2
Crop production adjacent to solar infrastructure x10
Crop production beneath or between solar infrastructure x20
Fruit orchard and/or vegetable gardens x x 7
Livestock for productive purposes x 3
Livestock for ecological management x 5
Providing water storage capacity x 6
Utilizing water storage capacity for other purposes x x 2
Enhancing or recovering of waterways x 7
Other RET present x14
Other commercial activities present x12
Access within SPP x 2
Access close to SPP x16
Access close to SPP hardly or not possible xxx
SPP as node in local or regional recreational infrastructure x 8
Temporality Reversibility to previous landscape conditions x 9
Reversibility and improvement of ecosystem services xxx15
Continued synergy between PV and existing land use x20
New function after decommissioning x x 2
Retaining existing vegetation xxx18
Retaining cultural-historical artefacts x 5
Referencing to cultural-historical artefacts x13
1. Solarfeld Gänsdorf
2. Solarpark De Kwekerij
3. Valentano
4. Southill Solar
5. Solar park Hemau
6. Zonnepark Laarberg
7. Sinnegreide
8. Solarpark Mühlenfeld
9. Zonnepark Midden-Groningen
10. Monreale
11. Southwick Estate Solar Farm
12. Energielandschaft Morbach
13. San Gabriele
14. Energie- und Technologiepark Eggebek
15. Merston Community Solar Farm
16. Zonnepark ‘t Oor
17. Eco-zonnepark Ubbena
18. Sawmills Solar Farm
19. Verwood Solar Farm
20. Babberich Agri-PV
L L LLL
P P P
P
L L LL L L
PN N P N N N
P P P PPP
P
NP
LL
PP
PP
LL?
LL LLLLLLL L L
N N L P N L P
LL LL
PPP P
P L P
P
P L
LL L
N N L N L P L
LLL
Dual-axis tracker solar park ‘Las Gabias’ in olive and almond grove landscape,
Andalucia, Spain (source: author).
Summary
Samenvatting
236 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Summary | 237
S
Summary
Energy transition and landscape are often considered as zero-sum
latter. These perceived losses stem from the transformation of
familiar and cherished landscapes, driven by the need to achieve
renewable energy targets and mitigate climate change. Landscapes
population density, the implications of landscape transformation
caused by the energy transition may therefore be severe.
Accordingly, landscape is a key arena for the energy transition where
the interests, values and concerns of local stakeholders and society
at large meet. This arena encompasses diverse stakeholders: local
inhabitants, energy cooperatives, NGOs, industry, grid operators,
policy makers, decision makers and researchers.
Many of these agents disregard or have a limited view on the
concept of ‘landscape’.
‘Landscape’ is often disregarded in setting energy targets, selecting
sites and designing renewable energy projects. Instead, the focus
considerations with regard to landscape are ignored.
When ‘landscape’ is present in the siting and design of renewable
energy projects, it is often considered as scenery
of energy infrastructure on viewsheds. This overemphasis on the
visual aspect of landscape leads to rejecting the proposal or taking
interventions that focus on reducing visibility without considering
the characteristics of the host landscape. Furthermore, landscape is
stable-state. As a result, the current
reference point for any potential change. This overemphasis on
the present landscape leads to pushing the challenge of the energy
transition to communities living somewhere else or in the future.
238 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
The disregard of landscape and the limited, conventional
understanding of landscape disrupts the continuity of the energy
transition and
our landscapes.
As a result, both scholars and society at large start to call for an
energy transition that includes ‘landscape’ more prominently in the
projects and developing energy policies. Physical landscapes start to
emerge that are not merely optimized according to technological or
and societal considerations. Examples are multi-purpose solar
power plants and ‘solar landscapes’. Multi-purpose solar power
plants aim to achieve objectives in addition to electricity production
recreational activities. Key to the concept of ‘solar landscapes’ is the
functions in relationship to characteristics of the existing landscape,
or creating new, distinct patterns.
Previous research primarily focused on energy technologies
instead of energy landscapes: technology and landscape are
commonly considered to be separate entities. As early as 1958,
British landscape architect Sylvia Crowe advocated in The Power of
Landscape an alternative approach: to start designing ‘complete
landscapes’, instead of mitigating inertia between technology
and landscape.
Studies focusing on the ‘complete landscapes’ for energy transition
are still rare. While other scholars too advocate this, they have so
projects and developing energy policies. This overall knowledge
gap points to the need for what is in this PhD thesis referred to
as landscape inclusive energy transition: an energy transition that
embraces a comprehensive understanding of landscape, beyond
Summary | 239
S
inclusive energy transition, it is unclear whether and how landscape
can turn from a perceived obstacle into a systemic catalyzer for the
21st century energy transition.
Therefore, the aim of this thesis was to identify key tenets for a
landscape inclusive energy transition, for advancing the energy
transition while meeting societal considerations regarding
each one studied in an individual research module:
1. How can spatially explicit, evidence-based and stakeholder-
2.
transformation projects and what is the role of design,
3. What are the visual, functional and temporal properties of
4. Which societal considerations materialize in Solar Power Plants
First, a methodological framework was developed to help researchers
(chapter 2). The framework enables the use of local landscape
knowledge, landscape characteristics and stakeholder preferences
to advance a landscape inclusive energy transition on the regional
scale. By including ‘landscape’ early in the energy transition process,
societal considerations can inform technology and site selection,
energy transition targets. These insights can assist policy and
decision-makers to adapt existing policies or to create new policies
design of renewable energy landscapes.
240 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
three
large-scale landscape transformation projects was systematically
analyzed, to understand how the functional, experiential and
transition (chapter 3). There is ample evidence that landscape
landscapes arise when governments address existing local issues
or future demands in the transformation. Furthermore, how
stakeholders experience their landscape needs to be understood by
designers and governments for them to be genuinely involved in the
landscape transformation process. Future aspects are addressed in
landscape transformation projects by anticipating future demands
of stakeholders or society at large in the design.
A comparative analysis of solar landscapes was used to answer
temporal properties of the examined cases evidence how societal
solar power plants that are only optimized for electricity production.
The visual impact can be dealt with by reducing visibility but also
by enhancing visibility in combination with recreational facilities.
Ecological, recreational, agricultural and water management
features can become part of solar landscapes, directly mitigating
land use competition. Considerations with regard to the end-of-
life stage of solar technology are addressed in few cases only,
by creating landscape features that enhance the use of the site
after decommissioning.
typology of multi-purpose solar power plants. The typology consists
of economic, nature and landscape dimensions that illustrate how
power plants (chapter 5). The mixed-production type combines
electricity production with other economic functions such as
Summary | 241
S
food production. The nature-inclusive type combines electricity
fauna. The landscape-inclusive type combines electricity production
with the improvement of the physical landscape or/and the use
and experience of the landscape. The typology provides a basis for
more systematic stakeholder-informed decision-making on solar
power plants.
in the energy transition discourse supports the continuity of the
energy transition and at the same time helps to meet societal
considerations regarding landscape. This mutual approach is here
articulated as a landscape inclusive energy transition, for which I
as a foundation for site selection and design, (2) policy makers,
designers, developers and landscape users actively use time in
the development of energy landscapes, (3) the diversity of societal
interests, values and concerns together shape a large variety
of multi-purpose renewable energy landscapes, (4) other grand
challenges of the 21st century such as food security and biodiversity
(5) landscape is considered and landscape values coordinated
from local to international scale and vice versa by governments as
well as other public and private stakeholders involved in
landscape governance.
comprehensive understanding
of the concept ‘landscape’ is needed in the energy transition and
other transformative challenges. Proponents of this comprehensive
understanding of landscape (1) embrace ‘landscape’ both as physical
landscape (object) and how people interpret and experience that
landscape (subject), (2) balance attention for the past, present
and future of landscapes, (3) facilitate engagement with local
242 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
stakeholders and society at large during planning and design, and
(4) shape landscape on multiple scales.
A more comprehensive understanding can move ‘landscape’ from
problem to solution space and, eventually, become a catalyst for
the 21st century energy transition. Understanding landscape as co-
construction of natural processes, human activities and diverse
experiences provides promising avenues for environmental
planners and designers to establish solid grounds with both natural
and social sciences in pursuit of an inclusive energy transition.
Samenvatting | 243
S
Samenvatting
Energietransitie en landschap worden vaak gezien als een ‘zero-
sum game’: voortgang voor het eerste staat gelijk aan (beleefde)
verliezen voor het laatste. Deze beleefde verliezen ontstaan door
de transformatie van vertrouwde en gekoesterde landschappen,
gedreven door de noodzaak om hernieuwbare energie doelen
te behalen en klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Landschappen
met een hoge bevolkingsdichtheid kunnen de gevolgen van
landschapstransformatie veroorzaakt door de energietransitie
groot zijn. Om die reden is het landschap de ‘arena’ voor de
energietransitie, waar de belangen, waarden en zorgen van lokale
stakeholders en de maatschappij als geheel bij elkaar komen.
Deze arena omvat verschillende stakeholders: lokale inwoners,
energie coöperaties, ngo’s (niet-gouvernementele organisaties),
bedrijfsleven en industrie, netbeheerders, beleidsmakers,
bestuurders en onderzoekers.
Veel van deze stakeholders hebben nauwelijks aandacht voor
landschap of hebben een beperkte blik op het concept ‘landschap’.
‘Landschap’ wordt vaak genegeerd bij het bepalen van energietransitie
doelen, locatiekeuzes en ontwerpen aan hernieuwbare energie-
projecten. In plaats daarvan ligt de focus op de technologische
overwegingen met betrekking tot landschap genegeerd.
Als ‘landschap’ wel meegenomen wordt in locatiekeuze en ontwerp
van hernieuwbare energieprojecten, wordt het voornamelijk gezien
als achtergrond of decor. Het gevolg hiervan is dat beoordeling
van de landschappelijke kwaliteit van projectvoorstellen wordt
beperkt tot de (on)zichtbaarheid van energie infrastructuur. De
visuele aspecten van landschap worden hierdoor teveel benadrukt,
waardoor projectvoorstellen worden afgewezen of maatregelen
worden genomen om zichtbaarheid te verminderen, zonder daarbij
244 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
rekening te houden met karakteristieken van het landschap. Verder
wordt ‘landschap’ ook vaak gezien als een stabiel fenomeen. Het
gevolg hiervan is dat de huidige staat van het landschap niet kritisch
bevraagd wordt en als referentiepunt geldt voor elke mogelijke
verandering. Als het huidige landschap teveel benadrukt wordt in de
energietransitie leidt dat tot het verschuiven van de opgave naar de
gemeenschappen die elders leven of toekomstige gemeenschappen.
Dit negeren van het landschap en het beperkte, conventionele begrip
en
heeft negatieve gevolgen voor de kwaliteit van onze landschappen.
Om deze reden vragen onderzoekers en de maatschappij als
geheel om aandacht voor een energietransitie waarin ‘landschap’
een prominentere plek krijgt in de processen om energiedoelen
te bepalen, hernieuwbare energieprojecten te ontwerpen en
energiebeleid te ontwikkelen. Steeds meer fysieke landschappen
ontstaan die niet alleen maar zijn geoptimaliseerd volgens
technische en economische parameters, maar die fysieke
kenmerken van landschappen en maatschappelijke overwegingen
weerspiegelen. Voorbeelden zijn multifunctionele ‘solar power
plants’ en ‘solar landscapes’. Multifunctionele ‘solar power plants’
hebben andere doelen naast elektriciteitsproductie door middel
van zonnepanelen, zoals voedselproductie, het verbeteren van
ecologische kwaliteit of het faciliteren van recreatieve activiteiten.
Kenmerkend voor het concept ‘solar landscapes’ zijn het aanpassen
van patronen van zonnepanelen en het meenemen van agrarische
of recreatieve functies in samenhang met de karakteristieken
van het bestaande landschap, of het maken van nieuwe,
onderscheidende patronen.
Eerder onderzoek heeft zich voornamelijk gericht op energie
technologieën in plaats van energielandschappen: technologie en
landschap worden gewoonlijk gezien alsof ze los van elkaar staan.
Al in 1958 pleitte de Britse landschapsarchitect Sylvia Crowe
voor een andere benadering: begin te ontwerpen aan ‘complete
landschappen’, in plaats van het ontbreken van de samenhang
tussen techniek en landschap te verdoezelen.
Samenvatting | 245
S
Studies die zich richten op deze ‘complete landschappen’ in de
energietransitie zijn nog zeldzaam. Hoewel andere onderzoekers
wel op het belang hiervan wijzen, blijven ze vooralsnog theoretisch
energiedoelen, ontwerpen aan hernieuwbare energieprojecten
en ontwikkelen van energiebeleid. Het ontbreken van deze kennis
geeft aan dat er noodzaak is voor wat in deze PhD thesis wordt
omschreven als een landschaps-inclusieve energietransitie: een
energietransitie die een veelomvattender begrip van landschap
omarmt, meer dan een ‘decor’ of een ‘stabiel’ fenomeen. Ondanks
de voordelen van een landschaps-inclusieve energietransitie is
het nog onduidelijk of en hoe landschap in plaats van dat het als
obstakel wordt ervaren, juist een katalysator kan zijn voor de
21e-eeuwse energietransitie.
Daarom is het doel van deze thesis om de basisprincipes van
een landschaps-inclusieve energietransitie te onderscheiden, om
de energietransitie vooruit te helpen alsook maatschappelijke
overwegingen rondom landschap mee te nemen. De volgende
vragen zijn gebruikt als leidraad in het onderzoek, elke bestudeerd
in een individuele onderzoeksmodule:
1. Hoe kunnen energietransitie doelen worden bepaald die
ruimtelijk expliciet, evidence-based en door stakeholders
2. Hoe wordt omgegaan met landschappelijke kwaliteit in
grootschalige landschapstransformaties en wat is de rol van
3. Wat zijn de visuele, functionele en temporele eigenschappen
4. Welke maatschappelijke overwegingen zijn terug te vinden in
‘solar power plants’ (SPP) en welke typen multifunctionele SPPs
246 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
Als eerste is een methodologisch raamwerk ontwikkeld om
onderzoekers te helpen energiepotenties te analyseren en
energietransitie doelen te bepalen (hoofdstuk 2). In het raamwerk
wordt gebruik gemaakt van lokale kennis van landschap,
landschapskarakteristieken en voorkeuren van stakeholders om
een landschaps-inclusieve energietransitie op de regionale schaal
te bevorderen. Door ‘landschap’ vroeg in het energietransitie
proces mee te nemen, kunnen maatschappelijke overwegingen de
keuze voor technologie en locatie ondersteunen, een tijdspad voor
de uitvoering informeren en uiteindelijk energietransitie doelen
bepalen. Deze inzichten kunnen beleidsmakers en bestuurders
helpen om bestaand beleid aan te passen of nieuw beleid te maken,
om locaties binnen de regio te vinden en om criteria voor het lokale
ontwerp van hernieuwbare energie landschappen te bepalen.
Om de tweede onderzoeksvraag te beantwoorden is de literatuur
van drie grootschalige landschapstransformaties systematisch
geanalyseerd, om te begrijpen hoe met functionele-, belevings- en
toekomst aspecten van landschappelijke kwaliteit kan worden
omgegaan in de energietransitie (hoofdstuk 3). Er is ruim bewijs
dat landschapstransformaties voordelen voor alle drie de aspecten
van landschappelijke kwaliteit kunnen hebben. Met betrekking tot
functionele aspecten gaat het om multifunctionele landschappen die
ontstaan als overheden bestaande, lokale opgaves of toekomstige
vragen meenemen in de transformatie. Hoe stakeholders hun
landschap beleven moet worden begrepen door ontwerpers en
overheden voordat ze oprecht betrokken kunnen worden bij het
proces van landschapstransformatie. Toekomstaspecten worden
meegenomen in landschapstransformatieprojecten door in het
ontwerp te anticiperen op toekomstige vragen van stakeholders of
de maatschappij als geheel.
Een vergelijkende analyse van ‘solar landscapes’ is gebruikt
om de derde onderzoeksvraag te beantwoorden (hoofdstuk
4). Visuele, functionele en temporele eigenschappen van de
Samenvatting | 247
S
onderzochte cases tonen aan hoe maatschappelijke overwegingen
leiden tot verschillende fysieke landschappen, vergeleken
met monofunctionele ‘solar power plants’ die alleen maar
geoptimaliseerd zijn voor elektriciteitsproductie. Visuele impact kan
worden aangepakt door zichtbaarheid te verminderen, maar ook
door zichtbaarheid juist te verbeteren in combinatie met recreatieve
faciliteiten. Ecologische, recreatieve, agrarische en waterbeherende
elementen kunnen onderdeel worden van ‘solar landscapes’, en zo
direct landgebruikscompetitie te verlichten. Overwegingen die gaan
over de fase wanneer zonnepanelen het einde van hun levenscyclus
hebben bereikt, worden maar in enkele cases geadresseerd. Dit
gebeurt door landschapselementen toe te voegen die het gebruik
van de plek verbeteren wanneer het energiesysteem is ontmanteld.
Tot slot, de vierde onderzoeksvraag is beantwoord door middel
van een typologie van multifunctionele solar power plants. De
typologie bestaat uit de dimensies economie, natuur en landschap
die illustreren hoe verschillende maatschappelijke overwegingen
leiden tot verschillende typen solar power plants (hoofdstuk 5).
Het ‘gemengde-productie’ type combineert elektriciteitsproductie
met andere economische functies zoals voedselproductie. Het
‘natuur-inclusieve’ type combineert elektriciteitsproductie met
‘landschaps-inclusieve’ type combineert elektriciteitsproductie met
het verbeteren van het fysieke landschap en/of het gebruik en de
beleving van het landschap. De typologie vormt een basis voor een
van solar power plants.
Deze resultaten geven aan dat het betrekken van het concept
van de energietransitie ondersteunt en tegelijkertijd helpt om
maatschappelijke overwegingen rondom landschap hierin mee te
nemen. Deze tweezijdige benadering is hier geformuleerd als een
landschaps-inclusieve energietransitie, waarvoor ik vijf basisprincipes
248 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
heb onderscheiden. In een landschaps-inclusieve energietransitie:
basis voor locatiekeuzes en ontwerp, (2) gebruiken beleidsmakers,
ontwerpers, ontwikkelaars en landschapsgebruikers tijd op een
actieve manier in de ontwikkeling van energielandschappen, (3)
vormt de diversiteit van maatschappelijke belangen, waarden en
zorgen gezamenlijk een variatie aan multifunctionele hernieuwbare
energielandschappen, (4) worden andere grote uitdagingen van
de 21e eeuw, zoals voedselveiligheid en biodiversiteit, gekoppeld
landschap meegenomen en landschapswaarden gecoördineerd van
de lokale tot de internationale schaal en vice versa, door overheden
alsook andere publieke en private stakeholders die betrokken zijn
bij de governance van landschappen.
Deze vijf basisprincipes suggereren dat een meer veelomvattend
begrip van het concept ‘landschap’ nodig is in de energietransitie
en andere transformerende opgaves. Voorstanders van zo’n
veelomvattend begrip van landschap (1) omarmen ‘landschap’
zowel als fysiek landschap (object) en hoe mensen dat landschap
interpreteren en beleven (subject), (2) houden aandacht voor
verleden, heden en toekomst van energielandschappen in
evenwicht, (3) maken betrokkenheid van lokale stakeholders en de
maatschappij als geheel mogelijk tijdens planning en ontwerp en (4)
geven vorm aan landschappen op meerdere schaalniveaus.
Een veelomvattender begrip kan ‘landschap’ van probleem naar
oplossing doen verschuiven om eens een katalysator te worden voor
de 21e-eeuwse energietransitie. ‘Landschap’ zien als co-constructie
van natuurlijke processen, menselijke activiteiten en diverse
ervaringen vormt een veelbelovende gezamenlijke basis voor
ruimtelijke planners en ontwerpers om samen met natuur- en sociale
wetenschappen te streven naar een inclusieve energietransitie.
Acknowledgments | 249
Acknowledgments
Before I get to the point where I thank those directly involved in
my PhD research, I would like to take one step back. Since I was
in Wageningen in 2005, I have been fortunate to have been inspired
to point me to ‘energy landscapes’ during my studies, although at
that time I hardly understood the concept and few scholars had
published about this topic. During my master’s thesis, I had multiple
conversations with the late professors Meto Vroom and Klaas
Kerkstra about ‘technology’ in landscapes, a topic they both dealt
with in their research. These conversations broadened my thinking
that was later deepened in my collaborations with Jhon van Veelen,
whom dedicated a large part of his career to both theory and
practice of designing the electricity grid in the Dutch landscape.
These encounters paved the way for working with energy landscapes
in collaboration with my promotor Sven Stremke, to whom I am
deeply grateful for his supervision of this PhD thesis. Sven, I have
that you have always encouraged me to follow my own path and
passions has helped me to develop both as person and researcher.
Our shared fascination for real-world energy landscapes has
brought us to many places around the world, something I hope we
can continue doing in the future.
Adri van den Brink was the other consistent factor over the course of
my PhD research, until he unexpectedly passed away in September
2021. Although I have missed him as a person and co-promotor
support and enthusiasm throughout my research. Adri committed
to my PhD research from the start, despite that he knew large parts
of his supervision would be as emeritus professor. I have truly
250 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
enjoyed his fresh perspective on my research, his wise one-liners
and his eagerness to keep learning about new topics.
I want to thank the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture for the
opportunity to follow my curiosity in energy landscape research.
Despite the long periods of restrictions caused by the pandemic, I
have enjoyed being part of the teaching, the ongoing conversation
on design research and the many celebrations and festivities that
have been organized. I have always felt welcome at the Academy
and attribute that to the cheerful and open-minded collaboration
with my colleagues. I especially want to thank Madeleine, David,
Joseefke, Hanneke, Mildred, Sanne, Matty and Janna for their
interest and support in my research and their help with the big and
small things related to my work. Furthermore, I would like to thank
the members of the advisory committee of our research group in
Amsterdam, being Jannemarie de Jonge, Andy van den Dobbelsteen,
Dirk Sijmons and Lennert Goemans for their constructive feedback
on my work during our yearly meetings. Especially Jannemarie, you
have been an example for me in many ways during my four years
at Wing. I will always remember your sincere interest in me as a
person and your support to pursue my academic curiosity.
I want to thank my paranymphs, Ilse Voskamp and Paolo Picchi for
their support throughout the PhD research and the preparations
towards and during the defense. Ilse, it was a pleasure to work with
you despite that we both had our own PhD projects. Thanks for all
the fruitful conversations about work and personal life, and being
dealt with. Paolo, although most of our collaboration will materialize
in another book, working with you has also shaped this research,
this thesis. I have enjoyed our travels together in the Netherlands
and abroad. I hope to be able to visit you in Italy in the coming years
Acknowledgments | 251
I am grateful to my colleagues in Wageningen, although my
presence and contributions have been limited due to the time I
Laszlo, Merel and Sjoerd for sharing experiences, tips and jokes
about doing a PhD research. Coos and Florian, I enjoyed supervising
your MSc thesis and am grateful that you agreed to dedicate part
of your work to the research that materialized in chapter 4. Many
thanks to Annelies and Audrey for being there and helping when
you, thanks for all your work and attention to detail. I am thankful
for the NRGlab community, among which Igor, Rudi, Roberta and
Daniela, to be able to share insights and curiosity even across
national borders.
During my research I have crossed paths with many researchers,
designers, policy-makers, developers, local inhabitants and others
working on and concerned with the energy transition. This research
and my research. Picking up the phone, replying to an email, being
interviewed, reviewing draft versions of papers, giving me a tour
and my personal joy in my work. I especially would like to thank
Volmar and Ralph, with whom I have already shared a decade long
journey of advancing the energy transition in Parkstad Limburg.
Furthermore, I am grateful to all the anonymous reviewers of the
individual chapters. In addition, I would like to thank professor
Eveline van Leeuwen, professor Kate Sherren, professor Sören
Schöbel-Rutschmann and professor Wim Sinke for their time and
energy invested as members of the committee for the examination
of my PhD thesis.
I would like to thank my family and friends for their support over
252 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
photo by Maarten Noorddijk
listen and support my choices at the pivoting points of my life, from
childhood to the present day.
Finally, I am blessed with a wonderful family of my own. Leanne,
thanks for knowing me better than myself sometimes, taking care of
everything when I was abroad and your encouragement to do what
I like to do most. Veerle and Stan, I’m not sure if and what you will
remember from this period when you grow older, but I am glad you
were part of it, you have helped me to keep perspective on what’s
really important in life.
About the author | 253
About the author
Dirk Oudes is landscape architect, researcher and associate of the
NRGlab, a research laboratory on energy transition. He studied
landscape architecture at Wageningen University in the Netherlands
both on a bachelor and master level. Following his studies, he worked
as freelance landscape architect for H+N+S landscape architects and
Jhon van Veelen and participated in the post-academic professional
experience programme (PEP). He started working on the topic of
energy transition during a 1-year appointment as junior researcher
at Wageningen University. He continued working on the energy
transition and other spatial challenges with design- and consultancy
group High-Density Energy Landscapes of Sven Stremke. This
temporary research group of the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture
performed academic research on the role of design in the energy
transition and at the same time disseminated knowledge relevant for
designing the energy transition amongst the students of landscape
architecture, urban design and architecture. Dirk worked at the
Academy as research fellow, taught classes and wrote his PhD thesis
solar parks across Europe. The results of three of his research projects
have been published in peer-reviewed journals. In addition to his
work as PhD researcher he collaborated, among others, with leading
to the negotiations of the National Climate Agreement in 2018. He is
been advisor for the Dutch Creative Industries Fund. Furthermore, he
is co-author of the book The Power of Landscape - Novel Narratives
to Engage with the Energy Transition (nai010 publishers, 2022) - that
examines energy landscapes in Europe and the US in the present,
past and future. Following his doctoral research, Dirk will start
working with the landscape architecture chair group at Wageningen
University. He will continue his research on a landscape-inclusive
energy transition while contributing to the Bachelor and Master
programs of Landscape Architecture at Wageningen University.
254 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
255
Chair of the SENSE board The SENSE Director
Prof. dr. Martin Wassen Prof. Philipp Pattberg
The SENSE Research School has been accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)
Netherlands Research School for the
Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment
DIPLOMA
for specialised PhD training
The Netherlands research school for the
Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment
(SENSE) declares that
Hendrik Herman Oudes
born on 24th February 1987 in Alkmaar, The Netherlands
has successfully fulfilled all requirements of the
educational PhD programme of SENSE.
Wageningen, 30 June 2022
256 | Landscape-inclusive energy transition
SENSE coordinator PhD education
Dr. ir. Peter Vermeulen
The SENSE Research School declares that Hendrik Herman Oudes has successfully fulfilled all
requirements of the educational PhD programme of SENSE with a
work load of 31.7 EC, including the following activities:
SENSE PhD Courses
oEnvironmental research in context (2018)
oGrasping Sustainability (2018)
oResearch in context activity: ‘Organising the online Webinar “Designers in the world of
Science” (2020)’
Other PhD and Advanced MSc Courses
oQualitative Data Analysis: Procedures and Strategies, Wageningen University (2018)
oScientific writing, Wageningen Graduate Schools (2019)
External training at a foreign research institute
oDoctoral Colloquium on Research M ethods and Methodology, EuroLeague for Life
Sciences Czech Republic (2018)
Management and Didactic Skills Training
oTeaching in several MSc course at the Academy of Architecture Amst erdam (2018)
oSupervising two MSc students with thesis entitled ‘The bright side of solar energy’
(2019) and ‘Not just another solar field: A multifunctional EnergyGarden for Mastwijk
(NL)’ (2020)
Oral Presentations
oCase study of frontrunner photovoltaic parks in Europe: an environmental design
perspective. Energy Research and Social Science conference, 28-31 May 2019, Tempe,
United States of America
257
Academy of Architecture, The Netherlands.
Financial support from Wageningen University for printing this thesis is gratefully
acknowledged.
Cover design by Dirk Oudes
Layout
Dirk Oudes
LANDSCAPE-INCLUSIVE ENERGY TRANSITION
