Holistic impact assessment metrics for on-and offshore wind. Deliverable 1.2. JustWind4All project.
Creators: name: Madrid López, Cristina
name: Marot, Samuel
name: Sierra Montoya, Miquel
name: Harasta, Nikki
name: Pérez-Sánchez, Laura
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2025
Subjects: subject: Wind power
subject: Social geography
subject: Environmental performance

description: In this Deliverable 1.2 of the JUSTWIND4ALL project, we describe the work undertaken in Work Package 1 (Holistic Assessment) to define a library of metrics for wind energy that informs decision-making, making the implementation of wind power smoother. The library presented here is the result of a coproduction process that has taken into account not only the amount of information we wanted to cover in our holistic assessment but also this intended use of the library. We conducted literature reviews, participatory workshops, and case studies to identify the information gaps that a holistic metrics library needs to address. In defining the metrics, we prioritized their usefulness in addressing those gaps. The objective of this work is to provide a framework for the development of metrics that is useful for decision-making and that can show a broader perspective to wind power development

Barriers to the implementation and information gaps

The main barriers found are summarized as:

·      General issues include insufficient understanding of integrated impacts on wildlife and local activities, inadequate strategic planning, administrative delays, and low awareness and participation. Addressing these barriers requires the development of new metrics to raise awareness, integrate environmental considerations, and enhance participation.

·      A vast amount of data is generated on wind power, but these studies are often clustered and disconnected from one another. The lack of integrated assessments is particularly pronounced in the case of emerging technologies, such as floating wind or airborne wind energy.

·      Despite the need to assess social and environmental parameters to reduce barriers, most research funding is still focusing on techno-economic parameters.

·      A life cycle approach is desirable to understand the cumulative flows of materials and energy, as well as their related impacts. However, Life cycle analyses (LCA) do not provide information about how important those flows are to maintain the normal functioning of society and are too general to be informative about actual local environmental impacts.

 

The WindSES framework

In this section, we present a framework for developing holistic assessments that inform decision-making regarding the implementation of wind power in the energy transition. To avoid creating disjointed metrics and to prevent redundancy with existing work, we base the framework on the conceptualization of the socio-ecosystem (SES) as a holarchy. Holarchies consist of a network of nodes structured as nested functions, which are highly interconnected through flows of energy, materials, money, and information. This framework is based on a description of the socio-ecosystem, where changes in one relationship (energy use) affect the overall dynamics of both the ecosystem and the organization. 

We utilized an adaptation of the ENBIOS framework, which links LCA and MuSIASEM; it inherits the sustainability assessment, which encompasses four checks for: i) techno-economic viability (including ii) openness), iii) environmental feasibility, and iv) social desirability, connecting metrics from social and ecological analytical levels.

We defined five analytical levels in our SES model. Level n-4 is structural and encompasses actual parks and their respective sites. At this level, metrics must be specific to the site, and LCA is not useful for understanding the impact. Level n-3 pertains to the energy technology level, where decisions are made about whether to prioritize certain technologies, for example. At level n-2, we differentiate between decarbonized renewables and non-renewables. This level enables decisions to be informed by climate models, allowing us to understand the consequences of climate change, among other factors. Level n-1 relates to the total energy supply, which connects with demand to explore the viability of the energy system. Finally, level n represents the entire energy sector and its connections with other sectors, enabling us to illustrate the linkages that wind energy has with other activities.

These five levels are associated with three ecological levels. Level E refers to the site where the park is located. Level e+1 represents the surrounding socio-ecosystem, where onsite impacts are observed. Level e+2 encompasses the global Earth system, which includes changes in the atmosphere and global cycles of materials, as well as other impacts. 

The metrics

In WindSES, the metrics are designed for a holistic assessment of wind energy sustainability, distinguishing between structural (at the wind park level) and functional (at the societal sector level) perspectives. They are structured around feasibility and viability checks. The library integrates LCA metrics for cumulative impacts. However, LCA metrics are contextualized at the level where the information can be better understood or be more useful for decision-making.

The viability metrics assess the extent to which the wind-related energy configurations being evaluated meet two constraints: i) they must be achievable, given their demand for technology and manufactured products (such as steel) in relation to the economy's capacity to produce them; and ii) they must be capable of providing energy in the type and amount needed to satisfy the demand. However, when the energy scenarios to be analyzed are calculated from an optimization model that compels a supply to meet demand, the second requirement is already fulfilled.

The feasibility metrics evaluate the extent to which wind-related energy configurations meet the following constraints: i) the total demand for resources throughout the life cycle can be fulfilled with Earth’s reserves, ii) the impact on ecosystems remains within established limits, and iii) the contribution to global change is kept within acceptable limits. This global change is typically represented in energy modeling solely in terms of CO2 emissions, thereby allowing the models to “fit” the emissions cap that has been set. We include additional metrics to explore further the pros and cons of sites, technologies, and technological mixes. 

Pilot Study

We present a pilot study for the Catalunya region in Spain, where we showed the potential of the library by assessing the distribution of two impacts with different social perceptions: contributions to global warming and land occupation from all parks installed in Catalunya. We demonstrated that on-site contributions to some impacts are minimal, whereas, for other impacts, they are substantial. Additionally, the regional distribution of burdens and demands is also important and distinct from one another. In this context, a new park can be viewed as a hindrance rather than a beneficial energy transition strategy.

In the pilot study of the Tramuntana project, we demonstrate the potential interconnections of the framework at the n-4 level (park) and its connection with other analytical levels. Conducting all modeling within a single, holistic framework is challenging due to the detailed resolution required and the need for alternative methods for specific aspects, such as food web dynamics. However, the holistic method facilitates preliminary screening and expedites the tendering process. This analysis also reveals overlooked feedback loops, such as the impact of the wake effect on CO2 sequestration.