Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Policy

0301-42

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Determining appropriate wind turbine setback distances: Perspectives frommunicipal planners in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario,and Quebec

Ian Watson, Stephen Betts, Eric Rapaport n

School of Planning, Dalhousie University, 5410 Spring Garden Rd., P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4R2

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 9 July 2011

Accepted 14 November 2011Available online 6 December 2011

Keywords:

Wind energy

Setback

Municipality

15/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.enpol.2011.11.046

esponding author. Tel.: þ1 902 494 7801; fax

ail address: eric.rapaport@dal.ca (E. Rapaport

a b s t r a c t

This paper uses a series of interviews to investigate how municipal planners in three Canadian provinces

(Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario) influence setbacks that regulate appropriate locations for wind turbines.

Setbacks are provisions in local land use policies that dictate required separation distances between wind

turbines and other land uses. Results of the study indicate that planners are not using a consistent method

to ascertain appropriate distances and are often constrained by a lack of experience, resources, and

expertise. These findings have important implications for wind energy regulation. Setbacks are intended to

reasonably protect the public from the impacts of wind turbines, while allowing for some development.

Municipalities in Canada may be best placed to consider local impacts of wind power, but the challenges

identified raise concerns about potential arbitrariness. Setbacks that are unjustifiably high can unnecessa-

rily close off territory and limit the ability to reach renewable energy targets. Taking regulatory power away

from municipalities, as has happened in Ontario, can facilitate achievement of provincial targets, but may

also increase opposition to projects at the local level.

& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Canada’s installed capacity of wind power has increased drama-tically in the last ten years, from fewer than 200 MW in 2001 to over4000 MW in 2011. The Canadian Wind Energy Association expectsthis number to rise by over 1000 MW by the end of 2011 (CanWEA,2011). Provincial governments are setting ambitious targets fordeployment of additional capacity; however, meeting these targetsrequires cooperation with local municipalities, which often play animportant role in regulating the siting of wind turbines at the locallevel. This paper explores how municipal planners in Canada influ-ence policy to guide locations for wind turbines.

Research on the processes used to determine appropriate localwind turbine policy is important in light of recent studies, on awide variety of planning systems, that identify local planning as abarrier to achieving renewable energy goals. Cowell (2007)discusses how local policy has been characterized as a ‘planningproblem’. Cowell argues that in Wales the national governmentdid not believe that local interactions between developers andplanners would produce sufficient locations to meet nationalrenewable energy targets. Studying municipal policy in Sweden,Pettersson et al. (2010) conclude that the local planning system

ll rights reserved.

: þ1 902 423 6672.

).

leaves substantial discretion to ignore national policy objectives.In Canada, unnecessarily stringent or complex regulations canincrease risk to developers and delay or cancel wind energyprojects (Ferguson-Martin and Hill, 2011). This view is certainlyshared by some Canadian developers. In one community that haddoubled its proposed setback a local developer said, ‘‘The sad partis that it’s going to affect other projects that are being developedin the Halifax area [y] Basically this project could just endwithout a scientific reason. It’s a political decision’’ (CBC, 2011).One council member described it as the community, ‘‘‘setbacking’wind turbines out of business’’ (Taplin, 2011).

The task faced by local municipalities in determining appropriateregulations for wind turbines is complex. Municipal planners andpoliticians face a tension between promoting development of windresources and reaching provincial renewable energy goals on the onehand, and minimizing or eliminating the negative impacts of windturbines on local residents on the other (Khan, 2003). For localpolicymakers this means addressing priorities that can be bothsymbiotic and antagonistic. These include provision of adequate landarea for wind development, predictability and stability for developers,protection of the financial and health interests of residents, andprotection of the local environment. This task is further complicatedby the complexities of public involvement and social acceptability ofwind turbines.

The issue of public involvement and social acceptability ofwind power has received considerable attention in the literature.

Table 1Sample of setback ranges in three Canadian provinces.

oiratnOcebeuQaitocSavoNepytkcabteS a Ontario provincial government standard

On-site residential dwellings 1.25 to 2 turbine height 350 m to 500 m 250 m 550 m to 1500 m depending on numberof turbines and noise profile of turbines1.1 to 1.25 turbine height3 turbine height

Off-site residential dwellings 2 to 3 turbine height 300 m to 450 m175 m to 700 m

Residential zones orsettlement areas

N/A 500 m to 2000 m 300 m to 700 m2 turbine height

N/A

Roads 1 turbine height300 m

150 m to 1000 m Blade length+ 10 m30 m1.25 turbine height

Blade length+ 10 m

Property lines 25 ft (7.62 m)Blade length+ 7.5 m1 turbine height

Blade length+ 1.5 m to 10 m Blade length+ 10 m30 m to 80 m

1 turbine height

1.1 turbine height

Protected buildingsb N/A A/NA/Nm0003otm0001

Water bodies Blade length+ 25 ft (7.62 m) 15 m to 1000 m m03m0001otm51

View planes N/A 1000 m to 3000 m,depending on features in viewplane

A/NA/N

Tourist routes N/A A/NA/Nm0003otm005

N/A: Not Applicable. Setbacks from these features were not encountered in the by-laws that we consulted.aMunicipal setbacks in Ontario have been superseded by provincial standards; however, a sample of obsolete policy is included here for reference.bProtected buildings may include: recreation centres; sport or cultural facilities; parks; public beaches and marinas; campgrounds; nature centres and trails; golf courses; ski hills, etc.

I.W

atso

net

al.

/E

nerg

yP

olicy

41

(20

12

)7

82

–7

89

78

3

I. Watson et al. / Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789784

The success of wind power applications at the local level has beenfound to be a function of this acceptability. A study of institu-tional factors influencing wind energy deployment in six Eur-opean countries concluded that ‘‘the problems that occur inimplementing wind power are local in character and once apositive national framework has been established the degree ofplanning acceptance that is achieved is largely a function of thedegree of local acceptance’’ (Toke et al., 2008, pp. 1142). Projectswith high levels of community participation have been found tobe more likely to be publicly accepted and successful (Devine-Wright, 2005a; Loring, 2007). Local residents are more likely tooppose a project if the decision-making is closed and servesexternal interests at the expense of local interests (Agterboschet al., 2009).

Social acceptability is often simplified in the media as aNot-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) reaction. However, this has beencriticized by a number of authors, who suggest thatsocial acceptability should be viewed as a complex set of inter-action with varying motives for opposition and support (Bellet al., 2005; Devine-Wright, 2005b; Warren et al., 2005; Wolsink,2000). While it may be true that public attitudes towards windpower are generally positive overall, attitudes towards specificprojects may vary (Bell et al., 2005). Reasons for opposition orsupport are complex; nevertheless, the aesthetic impact on thelandscape has been identified as the dominant factor influencingsupport or opposition to a project (Warren et al., 2005; Wolsink,2007).

The result of the many competing priorities and complexsocial acceptance issues faced by local policymakers is thateconomic, environmental, and political goals are oftencharacterized as irreconcilable (Breukers and Wolsink, 2007).Beddoe and Chamberlin (2003), commenting on the planningsituation in the United Kingdom, identify several other challengesconfronted by planners faced with wind turbine projects. Theseinclude a lack of experience, a lack of accredited informationabout wind energy, uncertainty with the environmental impactassessment process, responses to political pressure and a need forqualitative assessment of information provided. Khan (2003)points out that when decisions depend largely on the knowledgeof municipal administration, the risk of arbitrariness increases.Policy may be developed, which does little to efficiently andrationally address the range of priorities and issues presented bywind turbines.

This paper explores local planning for the deployment of large-scale wind turbines from the perspective of municipal andregional (county level) planners in three Canadian provinces:Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. Municipalities and counties inthese provinces often develop ‘setbacks’ for wind turbines. Set-backs are stipulations in local land use policies that dictaterequired separation distances between wind turbines and variousland uses. A sample of setbacks in wind energy policies from thethree provinces shows a large variation in setback distances fromnumerous uses (see Table 1).

It is not clear from a review of the setbacks what the reasonsare for such differences in local wind policy. This exploratoryresearch uses a series of interviews to examine how planners inthe three provinces influence wind turbine policy and to identifypotential reasons for the variation seen in setback distances. Wefirst provide context for wind energy deployment in Canada andgive a brief overview of the planning frameworks in the Canadianprovinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. We then describethe semi-structured interview process used to obtain informationabout how planners determine appropriate setback distances.Next we discuss major themes that emerged from these discus-sions. Finally, we examine the implications of the themes andidentify questions for further study.

2. Context

Unlike the unitary government system of many Europeancountries (Germany is a notable exception) Canada exists as afederation of partially self-governing provinces that are united bya central, federal government (Valentine, 2010). Although federalenvironmental laws and regulations may come into play for largewind energy projects, the primary power to regulate electricityinfrastructure (including wind power) in Canada is constitution-ally assigned to the provincial level of government. Canada’sprovinces further designate responsibility for land use regulationto local (municipal or regional) governments, and in many casesthis includes the regulation of wind turbine siting. However, sincemunicipalities are administrative creations of the provincesmunicipal land use policy must receive provincial approval anda provincial government may revoke or curtail municipal land usepowers. Provinces that designate wind regulation powers tomunicipalities may still maintain an interest in the processthrough environmental assessments for large projects, and poli-cies such as renewable energy generation targets and economicincentives. A detailed examination of Canadian provincial energysystems and policies can be found in Ferguson-Martin and Hill(2011).

The three provinces in this study differ in their approach toregulating wind energy deployment at the municipal level. InNova Scotia, municipalities regulate the location of wind turbinesthrough municipal land use tools. This typically takes the form ofpredetermined standards, including setbacks from various uses, inthe local land use by-law. Proposed projects that meet thesestandards are approved ‘as-of-right’. Municipalities may insteadelect to evaluate wind farm proposals on a case-by-case basisthrough a negotiated process known as a development agreement.

In Ontario, municipalities used to have similar powers as in NovaScotia. In 2009, the Ontario provincial government passed the GreenEnergy Act and introduced the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA)process. This streamlines the approvals process for wind energy andremoves municipal powers to regulate wind turbine siting. The newprovincial regulations include setbacks that start at 550 m andincrease with the noise output of the turbines (as reported by themanufacturer) and the number of turbines in the project. Theimplications of this transition are not the main focus of this study;however, it does provide important context for discussion.

Municipal regulations in Quebec can occur at two levels:Regional County Municipalities (RCM) and local municipalities.These levels of government must conform to the provincialgovernment’s broad policy towards wind energy. The RCMs areseen by the province as the most appropriate level of governmentto regulate wind projects due to the regional nature of many largerwind farms (MAMR, 2007a, 2007b). Due to the rapid developmentof wind energy in Quebec, many RCMs adopted temporary by-laws called Interim Control Regulations (ICR), which are tempor-ary policies developed without statutory requirements for publicinput. During this period local municipalities were permitted todevelop policies of their own as an alternative to the ICRs. The ICRsare now slowly being replaced by permanent policy.

Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec all have ambitious provincialrenewable energy targets. The Province of Nova Scotia’s RenewableElectricity Plan has set a renewable energy target of 25% by 2015(Nova Scotia Department of Energy, 2010). This would more thandouble the share of electricity produced from renewable energysources between 2009 and 2015. The government of Ontario plansto increase energy generation from wind, solar, and biomass from1657 MW in 2010 to 10,700 MW by 2018. Under the government’scurrent strategy, wind power would represent 10% of Ontario’stotal energy supply by 2030 (Ontario Ministry of Energy andInfrastructure, 2010). Quebec’s 2006 Energy Strategy contains a

I. Watson et al. / Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789 785

clear mandate for 4000 MW (10% of peak energy demand) ofelectricity generation from wind power by 2015 (MRNF, 2006).

3. Method

We reviewed a sample of municipal and county by-laws toexplore setback distances used by municipalities. First we focusedon areas with wind turbines, or those anticipating wind develop-ments. Next we searched for other by-laws available online andcontacted planners for those not available. It became apparentthat we did not need to review all by-laws in each province todemonstrate substantial variation in setbacks.

We then conducted semi-structured telephone interviewswith 17 planners involved with determining appropriate setbacksfor municipal wind energy policy. We interviewed planners fromsix municipalities in Ontario and five municipalities in NovaScotia. In Quebec, we conducted interviews with two plannersfrom local municipalities and four from Regional County Munici-palities (RCMs). Although Ontario municipalities no longer havejurisdiction over the regulation of wind turbines, we discussedthe process planners in Ontario used to develop wind energyregulations before the province took control of regulation. Threeof the jurisdictions – two in Quebec and one in Nova Scotia – didnot have a planner on staff. In these cases, another staff member(an engineer, building inspector, etc.) filled the role of the plannerin determining appropriate setbacks. Because of this, we refer tothese respondents as ‘planners’ through the course of the paper.

Initial interview candidates were selected from municipalitieswith established wind turbine setbacks or those in the process ofdeveloping setbacks. Further potential interviewees were sug-gested by respondents and followed up in a ‘snowballing’ process(O’Leary, 2004). We prepared a schedule of questions; however,the semi-structured nature of the interviews enabled additionalquestions to be asked according to the specific focus of theinterview. Interviews lasted approximately fifteen minutes toone hour and were recorded, transcribed, translated from Frenchwhen required, and coded according to emergent themes.

This research examines wind policy development from theperspective of planners in three of Canada’s ten provinces.Although land use planning systems are similar across Canada,the findings of this study should not be assumed to apply in otherprovinces.

4. Regulating based on the impacts of wind turbines

The primary purpose of establishing wind turbine setbacks inmunicipal policy is to mitigate impacts on local residents and theenvironment while allowing for some form of development. In2007, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) publisheda position paper to aid municipal authorities in determiningsetbacks for large-scale wind turbines in rural areas of Ontario(CanWEA, 2007). The paper identifies four key issues to considerwhen defining setbacks: public safety, acceptable sound levels atneighbouring receptors, impact on radio and telecommunications,and impact on sensitive environments. The position paper recom-mends that because environmental concerns are site-specific,these concerns should be dealt with through an environmentalassessment process. This suggests a ‘rational’ approach to thesiting of wind turbines. According to a rational approach, impactsof wind turbines can be modeled and translated into appropriatezones of exclusion (Nadaı, 2007).

It is clear, however, that Canadian planners are not necessarilyadopting this ‘rational’ approach. The planners we interviewedidentified several challenges hindering their ability to base wind

turbine regulation on a rational model about turbine impacts.These include a lack of expertise and resources, lack of consensusabout wind turbine impacts and inability to model the visualimpacts of turbines.

4.1. Lack of expertise and resources

According to one planner from Nova Scotia, the ideal approachwould be to regulate the noise impacts of wind turbines on a site-specific basis.

Noise is so site-specific—because what we’re talking about really

is noise right? That’s the whole purpose of the setback: noise. It’s

so site-specific, it depends on topography, it depends on prevailing

wind direction, and it depends on how you position the wind

turbines. I’m never going to pick a setback that’s right for every

situation.

Indeed, one Ontario municipality decided to take a case-by-case approach to regulating wind turbine siting that leaves it towind energy developers to provide studies about noise impacts.The planner there mentioned that, ‘‘The solution was a case-by-case basis. This is no different than how the provincial [Environ-mental Impact Assessment] handles it.’’

However, most respondents chose to establish distance set-backs, often due to a lack of expertise or resources. One NovaScotia planner mentioned that when asked by Council to revisemunicipal policy, regulation based on noise levels was an optionthat s/he considered; however, one councillor mentioned that theplanner’s predecessor determined that basing setbacks on soundwas, ‘‘impossible and nobody ever does that’’.

Another Nova Scotia planner felt that a noise-based approachwould be preferable, but that it was just not possible in thatplanner’s municipality:

There are major concerns in terms of our ability at the municipal

level to be interpreting and administering from noise reports. For

us to be regulating based on these scientific reports is incredibly

difficult and time consuming. So that’s why I’m still very much

leaning towards a set standard, just for being straightforward.

A planner from Ontario echoed these sentiments:

The other way of doing it was to set a minimum setback and set it

a little bit high to make sure that these don’t become an issue. We

chose the latter [minimum setback] even though I know the

former [noise setbacks] is the better way to do it. We just don’t

have anyone in our municipality that would have the ability to

look at that.

This planner ended up determining setbacks by taking acommittee to a wind farm and determining what was appro-priate, ‘‘basically by standing and listening to it and standing backand sort of figuring it out. It was really done by on-site verifica-tion I guess you could say.’’

A further reason, provided by an Ontario planner, for not usingnoise modeling involves the difficulty of communicating a com-plex model to the public:

It didn’t seem that crazy to just pick a number setback as other

people were doing it. I could tell you my argument of why it does

make sense. A technical number that’s based on a model is very

difficult for the public to understand, and if somebody calls me up

and says, ‘‘How close can a wind turbine get to my house?’’ and I

have to refer to a model in order to answer their question, that

makes it more difficult to communicate it to them.

One Nova Scotia planner emphasized how the simplicity ofsetbacks over case-by-case evaluations can be a boon to local

I. Watson et al. / Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789786

development. As the planner mentioned, ‘‘Without setbacks orthresholds or other limits it is impossible to establish as-of-rightdevelopment. The as-of-right development is something to encou-rage wind turbine development in rural areas of the municipality.’’

Although many respondents wanted to be able to determinesite-specific impacts of turbines, few of them did so. Instead theyused broadly applicable setbacks—an approach more familiar toboth planners and the public.

4.2. Lack of consensus

Respondents recognized that wind turbines have quantifiableimpacts and wanted to consider these impacts when determiningappropriate setbacks. Most respondents consulted with windexperts and engineers, reviewed literature and other publications,and consulted reports from wind energy associations and govern-ment departments as background research in the setback devel-opment process. Two of the Quebec planners we interviewedconsulted the TechnoCentre Eolien, a wind energy research centrein the Gaspe region of Quebec, about appropriate setbacks.Several respondents also participated in colloquiums and confer-ences on the subject of wind energy regulation. Some plannersviewed internet videos illustrating the strobe, or ‘flicker’, effectcaused by turbine blades passing between the sun and anobserver.

However, most respondents perceived an absence of consen-sus on the impacts of wind turbines. As one Ontario planner said,‘‘There is a lot of information out there, on both sides of the fence,right?’’ A Nova Scotia planner remarked: ‘‘Information is changingall the time when it comes to the wind turbines,’’ and then wenton to say, ‘‘What’s a good recommendation one day might be thestupidest recommendation the next.’’ The research available torespondents served to convince them of impacts that should bemitigated, but did little to provide guidance on the magnitude ofthe impacts and the appropriate means for mitigating them. Thiswas further complicated by sometimes contradictory researchprovided by councillors and the public. Referring to informationabout the health impacts of wind turbines, one planner fromOntario stated:

We at the Planning Department did not know what to do with

that information, we thought, ‘‘You’re going on the internet,

you’re finding studies by doctors with – I don’t know what their

credentials are – and saying this is a peer-reviewed study. You’re

plopping this in my lap and saying, ‘It’s been proven.’’’ And the

councillors were doing this research and putting stock in it.

The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities has attempted toaddress some of these issues by providing guidance in the form ofa Model By-law (UNSM, 2008). The Model By-Law is an overview ofliterature about impacts and a survey of policies in other jurisdic-tions. One Nova Scotia planner indicated that the Model By-law wasa wonderful starting point for research, but provided little informa-tion when it came time to actually develop policies to mitigate theimpacts of wind turbines. Another Nova Scotia planner had even lessfaith in the Model By-law; the planner’s observation was that veryfew municipalities are following it, and when asked if s/he wasusing it herself, the planner responded, ‘‘Oh god no.’’ Several NovaScotia respondents perceived that information on wind turbines ischanging all the time and thus the Model By-law is already out ofdate in some respects. As one Nova Scotia planner put it, ‘‘at least inthe realm of health [impacts] it is just completely inadequate.’’

4.3. Aesthetics

Another confounding factor for planners trying to determineappropriate setbacks is that the visual impacts of wind turbines are

not quantifiable. The 2007 CanWEA position paper does notmention aesthetics directly; however, the visual impact of turbineshas been identified as one of the key factors in public support oropposition to a wind project (Wolsink, 2007). It is therefore animportant consideration for planners developing policy. Plannersmust gauge local landscape values and perceptions of wind turbineaesthetics. A few respondents produced images of turbines super-imposed at certain distances for use in public consultation. Thegovernment of Quebec has provided a guide to assessing visualimpacts and integrating into the landscape (MAMR, 2007b). How-ever, it is worth noting that in the absence of a specific projectplanners have discretion over which distances to simulate and theheight of turbines used in the simulation. This risks misrepresenta-tion of potential visual impacts.

Planners themselves do not agree on the visual impacts ofturbines. A Nova Scotia planner found wind turbines to berelatively beautiful:

People aren’t complaining about the aesthetic look of these things,

compared to the towers in our power grid system. Those things look

like big skeletal ghost structures. Who would want to be anywhere

near those things? But the large-scale wind turbines are graceful

looking. You know, they are aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

In contrast, a planner from Quebec indicated that the visualdisturbance of turbines was a prime consideration when deter-mining local policy. The planner said, ‘‘The only condition that wehad was that we did not want to see the wind turbines; we didn’twant to see them from the village below. [y] When I think aboutmunicipalities in Gaspe, you go on the main road and you seethem all. It’s not pretty. It’s not pretty.’’ [Translation].

5. Adapting from others

Respondents found it challenging to determine appropriatesetbacks based on their research about the potential impacts ofwind turbines. One alternative or supplement to research onimpacts was to look to other sources for policy ideas. A fewmunicipalities had the ability to look at policy from previous winddevelopments in the immediate area. One planner in Ontariobased municipal policy on setbacks determined in the provincialEnvironmental Assessment process for a wind farm that hadalready been built in the municipality. Several respondents inQuebec referred to reports from the Environmental Public Hear-ings office. Respondents regulating in reaction to a proposed windenergy project were able to refer to consulting studies required aspart of their province’s environmental assessment process.

However, even in absence of a proposed project, planners arepressured to develop wind policy for several reasons. First, thereis a need to respond to senior government mandates for increasedrenewable energy generation; second, Council and local residentsmay desire to have policy that guides wind power development;and third, planners have an innate understanding of the need toaddress this new land use issue.

All respondents consulted by-laws from other jurisdictionsthat have experience with wind energy regulation. Three respon-dents from Nova Scotia directly asked the public to determineappropriate setbacks. These two approaches are discussed below.

5.1. Consulting other jurisdictions

A common first step in the development of any municipalplanning by-law is to explore how other jurisdictions haveaddressed an issue. As one Ontario planner put it, ‘‘Why reinventthe wheel?’’ Wind energy policy is no exception; another planner

I. Watson et al. / Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789 787

from Ontario described consulting by-laws from neighbouringmunicipalities:

Frankly, just like any other venture that we do, there are some

municipalities that are ahead of you in the game, and with their

permission, you talk to them about where they were at, and how

they compiled their reports and so on. And you sort of touch the

base and make sure you are comfortable with that sort of

information, and decide to bring it forward on that basis with a

nod to them to thank them for their work that they did before.

This approach is made even easier in Quebec because, as oneplanner said:

In Quebec we have what is called the SIGAT, Syst�eme d’Informa-

tions Geographiques en Amenagement du Territoire, and all of the

Interim Control Regulations and all of the schemas d’amenage-

ment can be found there. As soon as a colleague does something

we [planners] are all aware of it. So it’s not complicated to search

for a model, and then to adapt it to your own territory.

[Translation]

Consulting a by-law from another jurisdiction has an obviousadvantage: planners can build on the work of others. However,there is a risk of propagating setback distances from othermunicipalities without critically evaluating whether those dis-tances are appropriate to different contexts. In addition, a plannermay not be aware of the basis on which the setback wasdetermined in the first place. The Gaspe region was the first inQuebec to deal with wind energy regulation at the RegionalCounty Municipality level. According to a Quebec planner, set-backs for the Gaspe wind by-laws were primarily based oninformation and model regulations existing at that time, most ofwhich came from Europe. One planner from Quebec confirmedthat because the temporary by-laws had to be developed veryquickly in response to imminent development, many Quebecplanners adopted the form and structure of the Interim ControlRegulation developed in Gaspe. As the planner put it, ‘‘The InterimControl Regulation from Gaspe was available since around theyear 2000. It has been on the Internet for quite a while. It wasn’tlong before it snowballed in other regions.’’ [Translation]

5.2. Asking the public

Another approach that planners are using to inform and developtheir wind turbine setbacks is to ask the public what those setbacksshould be. One Nova Scotia planner described the process:

I am going out to the public first with a series of maps saying,

‘‘Here are some constraints such as environmentally sensitive

lands or airfields, or here’s the type of thing we also consider. Here

are the civic points. Here is an example of what 500 m from a civic

point looks like, 1000 m, 1500 m, 2000 m.’’ So we ask people to

actually choose which one they thought was most appropriate.

[y] We just gave numbers that tend to be typical. I know that

some people chose 750, some people chose 300, but just for ease of

asking the question and mapping it we had to pick something that

was consistent.

The benefit of this approach is that it directly involves thepublic, which can provide useful information about concerns, andalso create public acceptance of the setbacks. It also provides theplanner with justification for the setbacks they ultimately pro-pose: the setbacks are what the public chose. However, thisapproach is problematic because the public’s choices are exten-sions of their subjective view of wind turbines, and not necessa-rily reflective of the actual impacts of wind turbines. Furthermore,the justification that the public wanted a specific number is itself

weak; the numbers that the planner present to the public has thepotential to influence the public’s preferred choice of setbacks.Another Nova Scotia planner who initially asked the public todetermine the setback identified this issue:

Planner: When we asked people to vote on a setback I probably

wasn’t that careful about the options that I gave them.

Interviewer: Were those just convenient numbers [the options]?

Planner: They were actually the numbers that had been used by

[another municipality] and I thought, ‘‘I’ll just use those numbers.’’ I

really didn’t think about it. I should have thought about that longer. I

didn’t give enough of a smaller range I think. By the options given I’ve

obviously skewed everything to a large number. Based on that, the

policy that [a consultant] developed was very conservative.

6. Politics and public participation

Respondents indicated situations where the setbacks theyproposed were modified when exposed to the political process.In some cases the political process resulted in an increase in thesetbacks compared to what the planner proposed. For example,one Ontario planner said:

When a lot of debate happened at Council more and more people

were bringing up concerns, and more and more people were

saying it should be pushed as far away from houses as possible.

Council, when they decided what they wanted to approve, believe

it or not, tacked on another 50 [metres] to my number.

The planner went on to say, ‘‘It is interesting how you mightstart off with a number that has some sort of basis in logic, butthen the further numbers that get added on are just political, youknow, compromises that are made along the way.’’

Due to the rapidity of wind energy development, and the lack ofprovisions to regulate such development, Regional County Munici-palities in Quebec adopted Interim Control Regulations, which didnot require public consultation. Setback distances in some InterimControl Regulations have been modified since the initial regula-tions. A planner from Quebec described how setback distancesincreased due to public input once turbines were installed:

Along the way, it [the setback] was harmonized to 500 m, the

reason being that when the residents of the municipalities at

350 m, when they saw the permits being given and the first

turbines being built, they understood that 350 m is not very much.

So the augmentation of the setbacks is due principally to public

pressure, because initially the elected officials wanted them as

close as possible.

[Translation]

However, this experience was not consistent across the muni-cipalities we interviewed; the political process and participationof the public can also reduce setbacks. One planner from NovaScotia described the effect of the political process:

I proposed [X] metres and expected that to be, by far, the

minimum. But as a result of input from a developer our Planning

Advisory Committee felt as a group – a committee – that they

wanted to reduce that further to [X—100] metres. And then my

proposed setback from a property line or a public road was [Y]

times the height of the turbine, and they reduced that [y]’’

Another Nova Scotia planner found that the public politicalprocess took the reduction of setbacks too far:

I’d say about 95% of the people that attended these open houses

were enthusiastic about the idea [of wind energy]. In the survey

we conducted, the majority of them were advocating that we have

I. Watson et al. / Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789788

less stringent provisions than we eventually adopted, primarily

because we felt, and even the proponent felt that this is too

giddilyy how can I describe ity practically giving the industry a

blank cheque.

One reason for reductions in setbacks may be inferred from aQuebec municipality that reviewed by-laws from elsewhere inQuebec, and established lower setbacks on purpose to attractdevelopment. The planner there said, ‘‘The municipality wanted itto be a place where wind energy developers would find anadvantage given that the by-law is perhaps a little less restrictivethan elsewhere.’’ [Translation]

7. Implications

The process used to establish municipal setbacks for windturbines is important for two main reasons. On the one hand,setbacks can close off large amounts of municipal territory towind energy development, which can limit the ability to reachprovincial renewable energy goals. On the other hand, a setbackdistance should be high enough to ensure that impacts areacceptable to the local community. Respondents acknowledgedthat determining an appropriate setback is difficult, and that noone setback can apply for every situation.

Most respondents had a desire to regulate the deployment ofwind turbines based on quantifiable information about impacts,yet were constrained by a lack of resources and expertise. Mostrespondents also perceived a lack of consensus about the impactsof turbines. These findings are similar to research in the UnitedKingdom that suggests that municipal approvals for wind energyprojects were inadequate because of a lack of centralized infor-mation about wind energy and the need to qualitatively assessinformation that is available (Beddoe and Chamberlin, 2003).

Our findings also support the notion that opposition or supportfor wind energy is a complex issue. Public participation led toincreased setbacks in some cases, and decreased setbacks in othercases. Respondents acknowledged the importance of includingthe public in the decision-making process. Involving the public isan essential part of fair decision-making for wind projects(Wolsink, 2010), and the amount of community participationhas been shown to increase the approval rate of wind energyprojects (Loring, 2007). Three planners in Nova Scotia directlyinvolved the public to choose an appropriate setback. Thisapproach engaged the public and may lead to better acceptanceof the chosen setback distance. However, the planners suggestedconvenient numbers to the public, which may not accuratelyreflect impacts and may unduly influence stated preferences andlead to arbitrariness. Respondents in our study also identifiedchallenges translating the aesthetic impacts of turbines into asetback distance. Indeed, the impact of wind turbines on thelandscape is open to a site-specific and subjective evaluation onthe part of both planners and the public (Warren et al., 2005).

The issues faced by municipalities in determining appropriatesetbacks play into a debate over how wind turbine developmentshould be regulated. We found evidence that planners, especiallyin Nova Scotia, are questioning who should actually regulate windturbine placement.

As one Nova Scotia planner put it:

I don’t know any other land use activity that requires a munici-

pality to consider things like health concerns. I’m feeling like this

is a whole new world where we’re in way over our head. I really

think someone like the Province needs to come out and say, ‘‘This

is what we know, this is what we don’t know, and this is how

we’re going to handle it.’’ I think it’s beyond a municipality’s

ability to say, ‘‘There could be real health concerns so we’re going

to be cautious.’’ I can’t sit in front of the Council and speak with

any level of authority about the health impacts of wind turbines.

So making a recommendation becomes very challenging. In a

sense there is some value in the way Ontario has approached it

[with the Green Energy Act]. The Province has some resources to

speak intelligently on these very complex issues, and so that’s why

they’ve taken over regulation.

Another Nova Scotia planner felt that any policies that themunicipality set would be redundant. As the planner putit, ‘‘I don’t know why I’d even try, because I don’t have to.I believe that the provincial Environmental Impact Assessmentwill do that for me.’’

However, centralizing wind energy regulation can createmistrust if government does not involve local communities whentrying to site wind power facilities (Wolsink, 2007). This senti-ment was raised by a number of Ontario respondents in regard tothe Green Energy Act.

One Ontario planner said:

When the public views an application for something in their area

they want to have involvement at the municipal stage. So they

want to have some control through that process, and they want to

receive notice of what’s going to happen. They want to talk to

their local councillor if they have an issue. From what I have heard

they feel that that has been taken away from them, because it is at

the provincial level at this point. They feel like they don’t have as

much control or involvement in the process now that it’s been

taken to the provincial level. They are approaching the local

councillors and the local councillors are saying, ‘‘There is not that

much I can do. We [the municipality] have a commenting role but

that’s really the extent of involvement.’’

Another Ontario planner stated that some municipalities areconcerned about the province’s exclusive role in the process.

There are quite a number of municipalities that have expressed

concern about the province’s role and the approach that they have

taken in that process, and the fact that the municipalities feel that

there is little voice that they as a municipality have regarding

these approvals.

Another approach is to provide planners more resources andinformation about regulating wind turbines. This approach hasrecently been taken in Quebec, where the provincial governmenthas a wind energy policy and provides guidance to municipalitiesabout how to regulate acceptable locations of wind turbines.However, the majority of wind energy by-laws in Quebec wereadopted before these guidelines in response to lack of policy andrapid wind development. These by-laws were temporary and didnot require public consultation. Permanent regulations are slowlybeing integrated into municipal planning documents. An inter-esting finding from our research is that respondents in Quebec didnot share to the same extent concerns about which level ofgovernment should regulate wind turbine siting. All Quebecrespondents consulted the SIGAT network, a network allowingplanners to easily consult by-laws from across the province, as ameans to inform the development of wind energy by-laws. Thishas influenced a strong resemblance in structure among Quebecwind energy by-laws; however, the setback distances vary,suggesting that planners are not simply copying by-laws fromelsewhere.

8. Conclusion

This paper explored how planners in three Canadian munici-palities determine appropriate setback distances for wind tur-bines, as well as the challenges they face in doing so. Respondents

I. Watson et al. / Energy Policy 41 (2012) 782–789 789

in this study were often constrained by a lack of resources,experience, and expertise. If the tension between renewableenergy goals and local impacts is to be addressed, planners needguidance, tools, and valid information on the impacts of turbines.These resources would likely come from federal or provinciallevels of government. The breadth of political influence on windpolicy that was indicated by our respondents suggests that thereis unlikely to be a single, ‘‘perfect’’, setback that is acceptable toall interested parties. This may suggest that other provincesfollow Ontario’s lead and make wind turbine siting a provincialresponsibility. However, strong consideration should be given tosentiments of disempowerment identified by Ontario planners inour research.

The planners we interviewed did not use a consistent methodto determine appropriate setback distances. Setbacks proposed byplanners were informed by the local context and subjected tomodifications during the political and public process. Jurisdictionswith similar setbacks may have arrived at the setback distancesthrough very different means. Therefore, reviews of wind energypolicy should investigate and consider what factors influencedthe setback distance. Furthermore, we recommend that futureresearch should examine how planners adapt wind energy by-laws from other jurisdictions to their local territory. Are plannerscritically evaluating whether by-laws are appropriate to theirlocal context?

Finally, we recommend that future research should investigatedifferences between reactive and proactive regulation. In somecases, respondents were establishing policy in response to pre-vious development and were able to review studies provided bydevelopers or the results of environmental assessments. Othermunicipalities were developing regulation proactively or as ameans to enable projects in areas that previously excluded winddevelopment. Does the difference in impetus affect the form ofthe final regulations?

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our interviewees for participating inthis research. We are grateful to the Natural Sciences andEngineering Research Council of Canada for funding this researchunder the Strategic Projects Grant.

References

Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R., Vermeulen, W., 2009. The relative importance ofsocial and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 393–405.

Beddoe, M., Chamberlin, A., 2003. Avoiding confrontation: securing planningpermission for on-shore wind energy developments in England: commentsfrom a wind energy developer. Planning Practice and Research 18, 3–17.

Bell, D., Gray, T., Haggett, C., 2005. The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions:explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics 14, 460–477.

Breukers, S., Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation in changing institu-tional landscapes: an international comparison. Energy Policy 35, 2737–2750.

CanWEA, 2007. CanWEA Position on Setbacks for Large-scale Wind Turbines inRural Areas (MOE Class 3) in Ontario. Canadian Wind Energy Association./http://www.canwea.ca/municipalities/municipalities_bestpractices_e.phpS.

CanWEA, 2011. Powering Canada’s future. Canadian Wind Energy Association./http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.phpS.

CBC, 2011. HRM Wind Turbine Limits May Deter Company. Canadian BroadcastingCompany /http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/08/17/ns-wind-turbines-council-limits.htmlS.

Cowell, R., 2007. Wind power and ‘the planning problem’: the experience of Wales.European Environment 17, 291–306.

Devine-Wright, P., 2005a. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development:exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Economy 10, 57–69.

Devine-Wright, P., 2005b. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated frameworkfor understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8,125–139.

Ferguson-Martin, C.J., Hill, S.D., 2011. Accounting for variation in wind deploymentbetween Canadian provinces. Energy Policy 39, 1647–1658.

Khan, J., 2003. Wind power planning in three Swedish municipalities. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management 46 (4), 563–581.

Loring, J., 2007. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: factorsinfluencing project success. Energy Policy 35, 2648–2660.

MAMR, 2007a. Les orientations du gouvernement en mati�ere d’amenagement:Pour un develloppement durable de l’energie eolienne. Minist�ere des AffairesMunicipales et des Regions. /http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/publications/amenagement_territoire/orientations_gouvernementales/orientations_eoliennes.pdfS.

MAMR, 2007b. Guide d’integration des eoliennes au territoire: vers de nouveauxpaysages. Minist�ere des Affaires Municipales et des Regions. /http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/publications/amenagement_territoire/orientations_gouvernementales/guide_integration_eoliennes_territoire.pdfS.

MRNF, 2006. L’energie pour construire le Quebec de demain, la strategie energe-tique du Quebec 2006–2015. Minist�ere des Ressources Naturelles et de laFaune. /http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/energie/strategie/S.

Nadaı, A., 2007. ‘‘Planning’’, ‘‘siting’’ and the local acceptance of wind power: somelessons from the French case. Energy Policy 35, 2715–2726.

Nova Scotia Department of Energy, 2010. Renewable Electricity Plan: A Path toGood Jobs, Stable Prices, and a Cleaner Environment. /http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/renewables/renewable-electricity-plan/S.

O’Leary, Z., 2004. The Essential Guide to Doing Research. Sage Publications,London.

Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 2010. Ontario’s Long-term EnergyPlan: Building Our Clean Energy Future. /http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/pdf/MEI_LTEP_en.pdfS.

Pettersson, M., Ek, K., Soderholm, K., Soderholm, P., 2010. Wind power planningand permitting: comparative perspectives from the Nordic countries. Renew-able and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 3116–3123.

Taplin, J., 2011. Wind-farm Setbacks Spin Relief for Jeddore Residents. MetroNews.

Toke, D., Breukers, S., Wolsink, M., 2008. Wind power deployment outcomes: howcan we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable EnergyReviews 12, 1129–1147.

UNSM, 2008. Model Wind Turbine By-laws and Best Practices for Nova ScotiaMunicipalities. Final Report. Prepared for the Union of Nova Scotia Munici-palities by Jacques Whitford.

Valentine, S.V., 2010. Canada’s constitutional separation of (wind) power. EnergyPolicy 38, 1918–1930.

Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S., Birnie, R.V., 2005. ‘Green on green’: publicperceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management 48, 853–875.

Wolsink, M., 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity andthe limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21, 49–64.

Wolsink, M., 2007. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fairdecision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations ofnon-cooperation. Energy Policy 35, 2692–2704.

Wolsink, M., 2010. Near-shore wind power—protected seascapes, environmental-ists’ attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy 27,195–203.