the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The multiple understandings of wind turbine noise: Reviewing scientific attempts at handling uncertainty
Abstract. The noise from wind turbines has been an issue in the planning and development of wind power for many years, giving rise to both controversies during the deployment of onshore wind farms as well as a significant amount of research by various communities of scientists, or what we treat here as epistemic communities. Despite iterative attempts at fixing the noise issue through investments into technological developments and regulatory determination of allowable decibel noise levels, noise remains a contested and difficult object to find solutions to. In the Co-Green project, we instigated a social science-based study founded in Science & Technology Studies (STS) to look at why and how it is that noise continues to be so controversial. We do this through a narrative literature review of three different epistemic communities – the technical, health-based, and social acceptance literatures – tracing the emergence of the knowledge object of wind turbine noise. We illustrate how noise remains an ‘unruly knowledge object’ that defies stabilisation within and between the three epistemic communities: Instead, noise is understood as fundamentally different things across the three communities, fuelling the controversies over the solutions proposed, where the “fixes” might sometimes not address what was intended. We end by pointing to the potential benefits of more interdisciplinary engagement between epistemic communities and as well as to – in the context of science for policy – probe the potential value of finding ways to translate qualitative research findings into noise (and other) regulations.
- Preprint
(1015 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-34', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2024
Overall feedback: The manuscript deals with a very interesting and timely topic of wind turbine noise. Providing a critical, social science view on what is sound and what is noise and how science is involved in production of the phenomenon of noise and how it can be tackled, The MS is written in a way that is accessible to broad readership. In particular, the authors did a good job at positioning themselves in the ‘shoes’ of technical audience and explained very well their approach and how this manuscript could be useful for them.
Your paper as such can help a lot the technical audience to observe the ways in which they tackle the problem of wind turbine sound/noise- in a way you hold a mirror for the- but I believe it is also useful to the policy makers and people involved in legislation as well as management of wind farms. Perhaps you could also mention this audience in your work and conceive recommendations for how this MS is relevant for their work.
Abstract:
Various communities of scientists, here understood as epistemic groups. Maybe mention that these are groups working in different domains and what are these? Divided into single disciplines or how?
Introduction:
You start by arguing that sound becomes ‘politicized noise’. Can you explain what do you mean by this what seems to be a process of politicization
In the line 35 you discuss the controversies and issues around wind turbine sound, perhaps add reference to prior research that discussed it?
You state: “These issues and their implications for wind farm development are typical of those seen in Denmark, and there has been significant funding of ambitious projects to resolve the issue.” Maybe don’t say ambitious projects but make it more specific? Research projects?
You state “ how concepts such as noise are co-produced by the scientific communities that form around them” this is the first time you mention the idea of co-production, maybe good to explain what you mean when you use the concept? Or use a simple term instead.
Would it not be useful to discuss the public perceptions of noise? How they are different from the scientific ( and as you argue multiple) understandings of sound/noise.
Results
Your results are very interesting but mostly describe the state of art in relation to literature and not views expressed by the experts tehmselves. On this point, I wonder what was the role of your interviews in the data analysis as you do not seem to draw directly on this data in your results section. Would quotes from your interviews help to enrich the results and provide expert views?
As a last point of thought, I am wondering how your analysis what noise is would be if you also took into consideration animals?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-RC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 13 Sep 2024
Many thanks for the positive reception of our MS, and for the helpful comments and suggestions.
Abstract
Regarding the abstract, we will make sure to restructure the abstract so that our definition of the communities of scientists/epistemic is spelled out from the outset; hereby we will tie the technical literature to the engineering discipline, health-based to medicine/psychology, and social acceptance literature to the social science discipline.
Introduction
- In the revision, we have decided to omit the notion of “politicized” noise as we do not use this term more than once in the MS. Instead, we have reformulated it as “controversial” (that is, contested) noise.
- Regarding your comment (line 35) on lacking references regarding controversies and issues around wind turbine sound, we have added a few references.
- Thanks for your comment on lacking specificity on the type of projects funded to inquire into wind turbine noise. We have omitted the notion of ‘ambitious’, instead qualifying them according to their type (research, commercial).
- Regarding the notion of co-produced noise, we have decided to reformulate to simplify. Instead, we state that different communities create/produce their own understanding of what noise is, and that this has implications for how they deal with it.
- In other publications, we have directly addressed public perceptions of noise, but the scope of this paper is to focus on how the scientific literatures have looked at the issue of noise; here, the social acceptance literature is the one engaging most directly with public perceptions. We have added a sentence in the paper on this scoping issue (introduction).
Results
Thanks for this comment. We have now added an explanation of our use of interview data in the methods section. Our main data for this paper has been the literature reviewed (text analysis). We conducted interviews with the purpose of corroborating, cross-checking and verifying our analysis of these texts. Meanwhile, we consider using quotes from these expert interviews out of scope for this paper; we elaborate more on these in other papers.
Last, we want to thank you for commenting on the issue of animals and their perception of noise. We believe the three reviewed literatures do not deal much with this and so we have not treated it in the MS. We hope that future research could look into this overlooked aspect of wind turbine noise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 13 Sep 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-34', Bonnie Ram, 30 Jun 2024
Publisher’s note: this comment was replaced by EC2 and EC3 and its content was therefore removed on 16 August 2024.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-EC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-34', Ion Paraschivoiu, 25 Jul 2024
Publisher's note: the content of this comment was removed on 16 August 2024 since the content referred to another manuscript.
Disclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-CC1 -
EC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-34', Bonnie Ram, 08 Aug 2024
Dear Authors, Attached please find a set of comments on your draft article. Please address these comments and the first referee (on June 27th) and then you will see instructions for the next steps. Bonnie
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC2', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 13 Sep 2024
Thank you for taking the time to read our paper and for the detailed suggestions to add to our MS.
The overall comment concerns the lack of fundamentals of sound and noise characteristics of wind turbines, and the reviewer has kindly provided a number of technical details. We will certainly add some extra details about these aspects where they enhance a particular point. However, given the scope and aim of this paper, namely to offer an account of different understandings of noise, and to do this based on social science methods and perspectives, we cannot go into too many details with the technical aspects. We consider that the fundamentals of sound and noise are well documented in scientific text books and the technical literature, and our aim is not to reiterate these.
Indeed, we argue that through understanding how the different scientific communities see ‘noise’ as something different, we highlight why resolving the issue of noise continues to be difficult. We then go on to suggest that these communities could benefit from engaging more with each other, resulting in fresh input to, for example, technical research, and aligning efforts to solve the noise issue.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC2', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 13 Sep 2024
-
EC3: 'Comment on wes-2024-34', Bonnie Ram, 08 Aug 2024
Dear Authors, I am also attaching a PDF version of your article with editorial comments embedded from an anonymous commenter. i think they are helpful and for your consideration. Bonnie
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC3', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 10 Sep 2024
Many thanks for the helpful comments in the main text.
We will make sure to rewrite the parts where comments relate to language and clarification; we agree with the comments provided.
Regarding the comment labeled 'major omission', we will work on a section that briefly contains the fundamentals of sound. (Also see our response to R2 on the same matter).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC3', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 10 Sep 2024
Many thanks for the helpful comments in the main text.
We will make sure to rewrite the parts where comments relate to language and clarification; we agree with the comments provided.
Regarding the comment labeled 'major omission', we will work on a section that briefly contains the fundamentals of sound. (Also see our response to R2 on the same matter).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-AC2 -
AC5: 'Reply on EC3', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 13 Sep 2024
Thanks for the comments provided to our MS, these are all very helpful.
Regarding the comments on language use and clarifications/definitions, we will make sure to take these into account and revise accordingly.
Regarding the overall comment on the ‘major omission’ – namely the lack of “fundamentals of sound” (p. 16) – we will certainly add some extra lines about these aspects where they enhance a particular point. However, given the scope and aim of this paper, namely to offer an account of different understandings of noise, and to do this based on social science methods and perspectives, we cannot go into too many details with the technical aspects. We consider that the fundamentals of sound and noise are well documented in scientific text books and the technical literature, and our aim is not to reiterate these.
Indeed, we argue that through understanding how the different scientific communities see ‘noise’ as something different, we highlight why resolving the issue of noise continues to be difficult. We then go on to suggest that these communities could benefit from engaging more with each other, resulting in fresh input to, for example, technical research, and aligning efforts to solve the noise issue.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-AC5 -
EC4: 'Reply on AC5', Bonnie Ram, 13 Sep 2024
Dear Julia, Your approach sounds reasonable. However, you may want to consider that incorporating some of the technical noise language may encourage more readership from this mostly technology (and not social science) focused journal. You can always consider an appendix with the longer comments. I leave it to your judgement to address some of the authors concerns.. Per the formal review process, I will send your revision back to that one anonymous reviewer that provided these detailed comments. So I hope the turnaround will be swift! Thank you for your patience with this process! Bonnie
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34-EC4
-
EC4: 'Reply on AC5', Bonnie Ram, 13 Sep 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC3', Julia Kirch Kirkegaard, 10 Sep 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
465 | 168 | 72 | 705 | 18 | 19 |
- HTML: 465
- PDF: 168
- XML: 72
- Total: 705
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1